"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

Sheri Klouda: Gender Discrimination, Federal Law and the Law of Christ in the SBC and SWBTS

Dr. Sheri Klouda, Professor of Hebrew, The School of Theology, Southwestern Theological Seminary, 2002-2006.Dr. Klouda pictured at the seminary's convocation, August 29, 2002 affirming her adherence to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message

"Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought."J. Rawls

"For [it is] time for judgment to begin with the household of God" (I Peter 4:17).

It is essential for Southern Baptists to speak out when there is an injustice within our convention. This post is written for the purpose of drawing attention to a brilliant theologian who served Southern Baptists as a professor of Hebrew at Southwestern Theological for a total of seven and a half years, three and a half as an adjunct professor and four as full time elected faculty, establishing impeccable credentials and an extraordinary track record, only to be forced out from the job of her dreams for solely one reason --- her gender.

A Bright Light in the SBC

Dr. Sheri Klouda joined the faculty of Southwestern in April, 2002, as assistant professor of Old Testament languages. She received her Ph.D. from Southwestern in May, 2002. She had previously been conferred her bachelor's and master's degrees from Criswell College in Dallas, and as already stated, she served three and a half years as adjunct professor at Southwestern prior to joining the faculty as professor. In the summer of 2001, Sheri served as assistant professor of biblical Hebrew at Beeson Divinity School at Samford University in Alabama.

Her conservative credentials are unquestionable. During the same trustee meeting at which she was hired, the SWBTS trustees passed a resolution thanking fellow trustee Ralph Pulley for his 22 years of service as a SWBTS trustee. One can rest assured that all eight faculty hired that day, including Dr. Klouda, were solid, evangelical conservatives who possessed a record of unashamedly defending the authority, sufficiency and inerrancy of God’s Word. Ralph Pulley and his fellow trustees would have guaranteed that to be the case.

Dr. Klouda was an exemplary employee of Southwestern and a tremendous representative of the Southern Baptist Convention to the evangelical world at large. She excelled in the classroom, building a strong reputation as both a scholar and teacher. Her classes were frequently full, and her students testified often of their admiration for Dr. Klouda. Donald Moore, a theological student at Southwestern who was diagnosed with Hodgkins lymphoma during his tenure, expressed his appreciation for Dr.Klouda in an article published by the school's journal. “I was taking first-year Hebrew with Dr. Klouda at the same time I was going through my first round of chemo,” Donald Moore said. “I thank God for (her) grace and good teaching and patience.”

Sheri Klouda gained the respect of the evangelical academic world. She served on the editorial committee and as a regular contributor to the Southwestern Journal of Theology. Klouda also contributed to The Bulletin for Biblical Research, a journal specializing in ancient Near East and biblical studies. Sheri also was a guest lecturer at the 57th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania in 2005, and the 58th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Washington DC, in 2006. She also served as guest lecturer at SBL in 2006. In March of 2006, Sheri received a grant from The Association of Theological Schools, the prestigious Lilly Grant for Theological Scholars to partially fund her work entitled Building a Biblical Theology for Today: The Theology of Intertextuality.

Some of the faculty at Southwestern were concerned about the hiring of Paige Patterson. Paige was asked during a June 24, 2003 press conference following his appointment if he would hire women in the school of theology. He responded that “Dorothy serves on the theology faculty at Southeastern”, and that “ provides somewhat of an answer.” Then he added, “there are ample numbers of men who are well-qualified for those positions.” Patterson said he planned to build the faculty with “God-called men.”

Patterson’s philosophical perspective on the roles of women in theological education prevented him from feeling comfortable about women teaching biblical studies or theology to men. In September of 2003, two months after his appointment as President of Southwestern and a one month before his official inauguration, Paige met privately with all staff and faculty . David Allen, the 2003 chairman of the board of trustees responsible for hiring Dr. Patterson, and who himself would be hired by Patterson in 2004 to serve as dean for the SWBTS School of Theology, said of that private meeting with faculty and staff, "While some speculate about Patterson's compatibility with our faculty, I have high hopes that our excellent faculty will work well with Dr. Patterson."

At that closed door meeting in September 2003, Paige gave personal assurances to faculty that their jobs were safe, regardless of gender. Sheri acknowledges her concern at the time, but after the faculty meeting, and the personal assurance by Dr. Patterson that her job was secure, she relaxed and continued in her commitment to invest her life and service in the school she loved. A few days after Patterson's inauguration, four professors resigned unexpectedly, including Dr. Bruce Corley, however, Klouda placed her focus on serving her school and being loyal to President Patterson and the constituency that hired her.

Sheri is the primary provider for her family due to several illnesses which have plagued her husband over the years. In July of 2003 William and Sheri purchased a home in Arlington, in order to be closer to the seminary so that she could spend more time at the school and with her family than on the highway commuting.

A little over a year after Sheri received the personal assurance that her job was secure, she was called to attend a meeting in June, 2004, where she was informed that she would not be granted tenure because 'she was a woman.' Ironically, Dorothy Patterson was serving as Professor of Theology in Women's Studies, but unlike Sheri, Dorothy 'only taught women’. Though it was often said by Paige and Dorothy that Dorothy worked ‘officially’ under the auspices of the School of Education at Southwestern, she was listed on the school’s web site as teaching in the School of Theology. As of January 2007, Dorothy Patterson’s name continues to be listed on Southwestern’s official web site as teaching in the School of Theology.

In that June, 2004, precisely a year after Patterson had been appointed President of the school, Sheri was told that it was ‘the President’ who would never recommend her for tenure. Why? It had nothing to do with her professional performance or collegiality, but simply her gender. She would not be given tenure by the President, because she was the only female teaching biblical studies in the school of theology, and that was not the proper place for a woman. There were many qualified men that could fill that position and it was the President's desire to replace her. Southwestern would give her two to three years to find another position at a reputable school, but she was to do her best to find another position as quickly as possible.

Sheri was stunned. In her mind she had the job of her dreams. While the issues surrounding tenure do not guarantee that a professor will retain his or her position at an institution, she saw herself as working towards tenure at Southwestern. She had invested her life, her family, and all her energy to be close to the school she loved. There was not one thing she had done to discredit her school. Rather, she was well liked by the students, had been loyal to administration and faculty, and had done her best to bring excellence to the school of theology in evangelical circles.

She was being forced out because she was a woman.

The Dark Ages of 21st Century SBC Life

If one wonders what goes on in the psyche of a man (or woman) who does not believe a woman should teach men Hebrew or teach men to properly exegete the Scripture through the study of the languages, one only has to read the words of Paige and Dorothy Patterson.

On October 25, 2004, just one year after Paige was inaugurated, and four months after Sheri was told to look for another job, Paige Patterson gave an interview with Baptist Press. He addressed the rumors that circulated a year earlier, just prior to his inauguration, that women would not be allowed to take classes with men at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and “the rumor that women would be drummed out of the theology school altogether."

Patterson said he knew at the time that he would have to speak to the rumors one day, “But I sort of enjoyed watching the rumor mill work for a year," the Texas seminary president said. "Every once in awhile I've been known to feed one and watch how far it goes.” {Editorial comment: I am surprised at Paige's confession here and wonder if the content of some of the rumors he 'fed' will one day be revealed.}

According to the October 25, 2004 Baptist Press article entitled 'Women are Treasured by God.' Patterson said he purposefully scheduled a discussion of the issue of women in ministry because others often misrepresent his views on the subject, calling such misrepresentation a “diatribe and lie of the left.” Of the many attempts to explain what the Apostle Paul meant when he wrote the passage about the submission and silence of women (I Timothy 2:12), Patterson said, “Oftentimes, the answer of the evangelical world is that a woman cannot serve as a senior pastor.”

”Would somebody please find that in the text?” Paige asked. “It is not in the text. That is not said. There is no mention of occupation in this text at all. This is not a question of occupation. It is a question of an assignment from God, in this case that a woman not be involved in a teaching or ruling capacity over men.” Patterson concluded by saying "It is a prohibition of a woman teaching or ruling over a man . . . ."

There it is. Patterson's narrow interpretation of I Timothy 2:12 says it all and should cause our convention some serious concern. Paige is saying that this verse is not just addressing 'women pastors', but rather no woman shall have 'authority' over a man - period. No woman shall teach a man - period. No woman shall have 'authority' over a man - period. Dr. Klouda needed to be replaced as a professor because she was a woman.

Dr. Klouda was not a pastor of a church. Dr. Klouda was a professor at Southwestern. Dr. Klouda was not performing 'ministerial' services and was not 'ordained' or 'licensed' as a pastor. Dr. Klouda had been trained to teach Hebrew; in fact, Dr. Klouda had been trained to teach Hebrew at Southwestern Theological Seminary. Dr. Klouda was unanimously voted to be professor of Hebrew by the trustees of Southwestern in 2002. It cannot be argued that the institution had religious convictions that a woman cannot teach men - the institution's ultimate authority (the trustees) hired Dr. Klouda. It cannot be argued that the institution had religious convictions against a woman being in a position of 'authority' over a man -the institution's ultimate authority hired Dr. Klouda.

It can be argued that, in violation of federal law, Dr. Klouda was discriminated against because of gender.

It is critical to understand that Dr. Patterson replaced Sheri Klouda with a male on the basis of an interpretative application of I Timothy 2:12 which, according to Patterson himself, goes far beyond a prohibition of women pastors. According to his rigid and narrow understanding of this Pauline text, Patterson believes that it is God's will for a woman to not serve in any position of ‘authority’ over a man. Understanding his thinking answers several questions that have been raised in my own mind over the last two years:

(1). Why would Keith Eitel and Paige Patterson write a 'White Paper' and 'cover letter' respectively, taking to task the International Mission Board for women serving overseas as strategy coordinators with the International Mission Board?

(2). Why would the North American Mission Board no longer endorse women as military chaplains, particularly when the military is facing a shortage of women chaplains for ministry to women soldiers?

(3). Why would Dorothy Patterson only 'teach' women in Southwestern's School of Theology?

(4). Why would trustees serving any Southern Baptist Convention agency have a problem with a competent administrator of an SBC agency simply because she was a woman?

(5).Why would Dr. Sheri Klouda, one of the finest Hebrew professors our convention has ever produced, be forced out due to her gender?

Dr. Patterson closes out his October 2004 interview by giving us a concise answer to the above questions: “Ladies, the highest and noblest calling of God is mother and grandmother. Write it in bold letters with a big magic marker . . . (even) though it runs counter to an American culture that drives women to succeed in business and other endeavors."

Obviously, there are many of us who would oppose any philosophy that minimizes and marginalizes the role of women far beyond that of pastor in a local church, but when people in our convention are hurt by the application of that philosophy, then it is time for us to do something.

The Law of Christ and the Law of the Land

Sheri Klouda did not want to leave her job at Southwestern Theological Seminary. She had outstanding job performance evaluations, a student body that appreciated her, and an academic world that respected her. She was at the job of her dreams. Her family established themselves in Arlington, and her daughter was active in high school there. Dr. Klouda was focused on giving her best efforts to the service of the school. When she was told that she would not be given tenure because she 'was a woman' in a man's position, she was troubled. Her confidence in the adminstration was shaken. She and her family operated under the assurances of Dr. Patterson, given in September, 2003, and as a result took on the responsibilities of a more expensive home in order to be closer to the seminary, relying on her hospital benefits to meet William’s medical needs.

Through a series of broken promises that eventually led to Patterson quietly not assigning her teaching responsibilities for the fall of 2006 because of her gender, and then seeking to terminate her contract and benefits in December by 2006 (the middle of an academic cycle, and the worst possible time for an academician to find a job), this popular Hebrew professor found herself being phased out. Only because of the prestigious Lilly grant, which required seminary support of Dr. Klouda’s research, Paige agreed to find a way to pay Sheri until the spring of 2007. However, in the summer of 2006, Sheri was graciously elected to a professorship at Taylor University in Indiana, where she is appreciated for her work and for the contributions she is making to the academic community there.

The Klouda's house has not yet sold the Fort Worth metroplex, causing unnecessary hardship for the family, since the salary levels for professors differ greatly among institutions. When asked why she said nothing about her situation in 2004 when she was told she would have to leave because of her gender, she said she did not want to jeopardize her family by saying something that would cause the seminary to sever her salary while she was looking for a new job. In addition, she did not want to bring reproach on the seminary or on those who had effected her appointment to the faculty, hoping to make a quiet transition without publicity and conflict. Her husband's health has not improved, and he is currently having difficulty finding regular work in central Indiana, an area known for its economic struggles in recent years.

Our church has helped the Kloudas from our benevolence fund and I have personally given money to help support them. However, this post is not designed to draw out sympathy for the Kloudas. Sheri herself speaks highly of God's providence, and though she struggles to, she has expressed to me her solid belief that God is gracious and that he will bless her in whatever place of service she finds herself.

What bothers me is the extraordinarily restrictive views of certain leaders in our convention regarding women. This is not about 'being a pastor’' of a church. This is not a BFM 2000 issue. This is all about the belief among some that women should not have authority over men, whether it be in the home, the church, a business, or society in general.

The United States federal law forbids discrimination of employment based upon gender:

UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

It is argued that churches and religious institutions do not follow under the authority of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines (EEOC), but my good friend, Gary Richardson has given me some great counsel in the past regarding the law and Christians. He told me that every good principle that forms the basis for government protecting her citizens is a principle that can be found in the Word of God.

For our convention to treat in such a poor and humiliating manner a Christian who is as gifted and competent as Sheri Klouda – just because she is a woman- is a very poor witness to the love of Christ in us, a sense of His justice over us, and an appreciation of the equality He brings to us all.

If there is not a change in the way we as the Southern Baptist Convention view, treat, and appreciate women, there will be more lights that go out in our beloved convention than the shining luminary known as Sheri Klouda.

For those who say, “But Scripture demands that ‘a woman should not teach or have authority over a man’!” (I Timothy 2:12), I would respond that I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture as much as anyone, and that word ‘authority’ is used just this once in Scripture. A clear meaning cannot be found in any place where Greek is used. It is not in the Septuagint, nor in classical Greek, nor any other literature of the day.

Some have surmised the only way to understand is as a slang word used to describe how the priestesses of the Temple of Diana tried to control and dominate men in that particular mystery religion popular in Ephesus. Could it be that some of those women were converted but were having problems staying away from the habit of using their sexuality and feminine charm to manipulate men, just as the people in Corinth were having a problem staying away from drunkeness which was part of the worship of Aphrodite in their mystery religion? Whatever the case, to interpret that text to teach that a woman cannot teach Hebrew or theology to a man, but at the same time grant doctorates to women in theology and the languages is at best illogical, and at worst chauvanisitc.

For those who say it is nobody’s business what goes on among the faculty of Southwestern, I would gently disagree. This is a Southern Baptist institution, and it is our duty to insure that things are done ethically, judicially, and biblically. The poor treatment of Sheri Klouda leads us to ask several pertinent questions regarding the direction of Southwestern and the Southern Baptist Convention as a whole.

(1). First, will our Southern Baptist seminaries eventually move to bar women from obtaining theological and doctoral degrees? If not, then why would an institution confer a doctorate in theology or the languages but at the same time forbid that woman from being hired in the professional jobs that require such a doctorate.

(2). Why would trustees unanimously hire a woman professor of Hebrew, affirm administration’s excellent job reviews of her, only to then allow her to be dismissed for being a woman? Does no SWBTS trustee comprehend that nothing changed but the President of their institution and his differing views of women?

(3). Do we really desire for just a few to dictate and determine policy that affects people throughout the entire Southern Baptist Convention, including some of the brightest missionaries and educators in our convention, particularly when the interpretive view that excludes people from service far exceeds the BFM 2000?

(4). Is there a conflict of interest when the chairman of the board of trustees, David Alan, adamantly supports Dr. Klouda’s hiring, but then just a year later, as an employee of that same institution, find himself being in a position where he could not object to her removal because of her gender? Or more precisely, how can an institution make decisions that place our convention in possible violation of federal law and nobody say anything?

(5). If someone says, “It is the President’s prerogative to do as he pleases,” then the question becomes, “Do trustees, administrative employees, and others not have the courage to speak out regarding an unjust action?”

The treatment of Dr. Klouda is indefensible biblically, ethically and morally.

I emailed Paige Patterson and Sheri Klouda prior to this posting to alert them and give them an opportunity to respond if they desired. Sheri Klouda preferred not to go on the record. I did not hear from Paige via email so I called Paige before this post went up to speak with him personally. He has not returned my call. I have gone to great lengths to insure that every fact in this post is accurate.

This post will be taken by some as a strike against Dr. Patterson's. It is not. I hope this post is a very strong rebuke against the belief by some in our convention regarding women. The unbiblical, narrow and unjust view of women is at the heart of what I believe to be a growing problem in our convention is putting us all in danger. I will do my best to convince everyone that the continued minimization and marginalization of women is detrimental to the SBC. I repeat: this issue is not about women pastors. It is about spreading a distorted view of women, allegedly based upon Scripture, but contradictory to the true meaning of God's word, not to mention the spirit and power of the New Covenant established by Christ Himself.

It would be consistent with a publicly confessed propensity for feeding rumors that false things might be said about Dr. Klouda in order to justify her removal from Southwestern for reasons other than gender, but those who know Dr. Klouda recognize the foolishness of taking such an approach. In fact, true Christians will seek to address the issues raised through the treatment of Dr. Klouda rather than attack the characters of those involved.

I am grateful for Paige Patterson and his contributions to Southern Baptists. I gladly call him my brother in Christ and I desire nothing but the Lord's blessings upon him. My love for Dr. Patterson, however, does not negate my desire to correct a very distorted view of women that places our agencies in general, and Southwestern Theological Seminary specifically, in grave jeopardy both morally and legally.

I close with the words of Sheri Klouda herself:

"Abraham's willingness to relinquish Isaac expresses his dependence on the Lord himself, not just on the divine promise alone. Abraham recognizes his son Isaac as a gift ultimately belonging to God, and the fulfillment of the Lord's covenant promises as a privilege, not a right." A. Boyd Luter and Sheri L. Klouda, "Isaac," DOTP 448.

385 comments:

This matter should and must be investigated by the trustees of SWBTS. Full and final accountability rests with them, not the president. Examples like this demonstrate the wisdom of our Convention elected trustee system. If the trustees are satisfied then we as Southern Baptists must be satisfied.

As an attorney myself, and a Southern Baptist, I can say you have displayed great wisdom in bringing this to our attention as a convention. Some may argue teh SBC has immunity to federal laws- but I'm not so sure. I can say this -- there is no way under the sun a corporation, university, or any other businesss entity in the United States that could get by with what happened to Dr. Klouda

It's better for people like you to help us see the issues than for people outside the system to try to correct us.

Oh, Wade. My heart breaks. It is a sad testament to the folly of man, but praise God it will be to His glory. This hits every button for me as an employment attorney, a minister, a Christian, and one who really has more questions than answers about the interpretations of Timothy and Corinthians around the role of women. Thank you for posting this. I am sure it was with great sobriety you did so.

If this gets public attention, I fear that the defense of the matter will go like this: (1) this is purely our right and is a simple exercise of our religious freedom; (2) all the pressure against our exercise of religious freedom is persecution; and (3) this is persecution because of our righteous defense of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

This is where it gets really sad, because terminating a professor of Hebrew has nothing to do with the gospel of Christ and I fear for the one who stands God contending that such a decision proclaimed the good news of Jesus. I'm glad we serve a gracious and loving God because I know how foolish I am.

This illustrates wonderfully the folly of dealing so dogmatically with very disputable and mysterious matters of scripture.

I appreciate your efforts to bring into the open what goes on within the convention. I believe that at least some of the controversy within the convention between moderates and conservatives has been at root a controversy over the way people have been treated. I do not say this to imply that there have been or will not continue to be significant theological differences that bring conflict. I suspect that most people in the churches I have grown up in (if not all) would object to the way this professor was treated. Unfortunately I feel pessimistic that there will be any change.

i see no problem with a woman teaching men the hebrew language. but, the bible does prohibit a woman from teaching a man doctrine. that is very clear. no woman should be teaching a man in sunday school. no woman should be teaching men theology, or doctrine, in a seminary. no woman should be a pastor.

but, if all she was doing was teaching men the hebrew language, then i dont see the problem.

I need for someone to show me the scriptural basis for this decision. Where are we taught that a woman cannot teach in a seminary? Cannot serve over a man in a ministry structure of para-church opportunities? Para-church isn't the church. I'm amazed that so many who believe in the exclusivity of the local church attempt to transfer an obviously local church teaching outside that focus.

In legal terms this probably goes to "gender bias" or something, but it just seems unscriptural to me.

I believe there may be a problem with immunity based on 'religious freedom' in the Klouda issue.

If there were convictions against 'women' being professors of Hebrew and theology at the school, why was Sheri Kouda hired in the first place? A good attorney, and I know you are one, would show clearly there are no such convictions.

Second, why would the insititution bestow degrees on women in theology and Hebrew and not allow those women to hold positions where there degrees are required?

Third, Dr. Klouda taught at SWBTS for almost eight years.

She was released for being a woman. That is a violation of federal law unless there is immunity.

Again, it is quite possible that there is no immunity in this case. I am simply asking why are we placing ourselves at risk. In other words, maybe some in our convention need to reexamine their views and treatment of women, or at least the majority of us need to get control of the ship.

Wade - how can we "give it back to God?" What can be done? If we try to go through the trustees, that seems unlikely to get any results. Why can't we "trust" the trustees? Because consider your statement" ...David Allen, the 2003 chairman of the board of trustees responsible for hiring Dr. Patterson, and who himself would be hired by Patterson in 2004 to serve as dean for the SWBTS School of Theology,..."

Does does this not bring into the question the integrity of BOTH of these men and the trustees as a whole. That kind of blatant quid pro quo in SBC leadership is nauseating. David Allen leads the push to hire Paige, then Paige hires him as the DEAN. Wow. Is there not any accountability for these guys?

Again, what can we do except the Matthew 18 rhetoric and then just be told we should "leave quietly.?" Wade, I am glad you have not chosen to leave quietly. But other than blog, what specifically can we do?

You raise an interesting question. Let me say, for the record, David Allen is a very good man. He would NEVER do anything intentionally to violate his integrity or the insitutions.

I simply believe you have a situation where he could not speak out because he was an employee.

This is the trustees job to get the ship we call SWBTS on course.

This is why any manipulation of the trustee process is a very serious matter. In other words, friends, family, debtors, and sycophants should not be trustees, and no agency head should ever seek to place anyone on his, or anyone else's board.

We're getting there in the correction of the problem. San Antonio will be a huge second step.

Putting that aside, in response to Mo-scratch, I have seen repeatedly in my life how God takes things that seem most tragic and turned them into great victories for His glory. I think it is possible that this may be one of those times.

Sheri and I were fellow Ph.D. students together at SWBTS. She is, without question, a Hebrew scholar.

During our time of study a very well-respected professor was removed from her post, Dr. Karen Bullock. Like Sheri, she was hired by the "conservative" trustees. They appointed her to teach history (they noted it was not Bible, theology, etc., any position indicating "authority over a man") and then fired her because of her gender.

Because Dr. Bullock was not only a fine professor, but also a friend (my wife, Sharon, and I became friends with Karen and her husband, John, while we were all members at Southcliff), her termination brought a tremendous amount of grief. Nonetheless, she resigned with a sense of peace and was shortly thereafter hired by DBU.

These hirings/firings bother me a great deal. It would be one thing if "liberal" trustees hired these ladies, but they didn't. They were hired, then fired, by the "conservatives." What can professor Dorothy Patterson expect?

I agree with you that (if your sources are correct) this case has been poorly handled. If she was not to serve as a professor of Hebrew because of gender, she should have never been hired in the first place.

I also commend your church for helping the Klouda family financially.

Less to the point, but still important, I think that your exegesis (or clever suggestion that 1 Timohty 2.12 cannot be exegeted) is on shaky ground at best. Regardless of what one thinks of the word 'authenteo', the word 'didasko' is used quite often in the NT and no scholar debates its meaning. Nor has the historic Christian church debated the meaning of this verse...until recently.

So the onus of proof is on anyone who wants to argue that this passage doesn't mean what it clearly says. "I do not allow a woman to teach...a man." The onus is also on those same folks to demonstarte that Paul would have thought wholly otherwise if the woman were not teaching in a church service...but a setting designed to prepare men to teach in a church service! Furthermore, the onus is on those who want to interpret this passage as meaning only that women cannot teach doctrine (as a previous post suggests). Again, that is not what Paul says...and we would be hard-pressed to figure out a way to exegetically demonstrate that this is what he means.

What am I saying?

1. It seems that perhaps SWBTS really mishandled this whole situation...on the front and back ends.

2. Although he may have mishandled the situation, and been misleading (or even dihonest) that does not mean that Dr. Patterson's exegesis of 1 Timothy 2.12 is incorrect. One can be correct and unwise/unloving. And one can be loving, yet incorrect.

3. I think that your handling of the text at question here leavse much to be desired. Mind you, I agree with your dismay and your heart for Dr. Klouda. But your handling (or mishandling) of this text opens a pandora's box of misuse and misinterpretation of 1 Timothy 2.12...and potentially other passages of Scripture as well.

You will laugh at me (and perhaps write me off as archaic)...but history demonstrates that those individuals, churches, and denominations who cannot take 1 Timothy 2.12 at face value eventually come to the place where they cannot take John 14.6 at face value either.

So, for the SBC that will, I hope exist long beyond our lifetimes, be careful how you handle the Bible...even on secondary or tertiary issues.

Kurt Strassner, it sounds like you are proving that the interpretation of Timothy is disputable at best, although I'm not convinced. The word is not teach, it is authority. And, in the historical and linguistic context, we'd be better served to weigh it against all of the bible and the character and nature of God than to try to say that it means a women may never teach or exercise authority over a man. Are you really thinking that God's character is such that no woman anywhere may ever teach any man anywhere or anything? And, how does that comport with so many other texts in scripture?? This has been debated extensively throughout the centuries and has not been only questioned in recent history. It also has been debated extensively on the blogosphere, and I have found a great many devout men and women who have a wide variety of interpretations of these and other passages regarding the role of women in the ministry and in the world.

I have no problem with women professors. Karen Bullock was my Christian History professor at SWBTSand I thoroughly enjoyed her. I know she's no longer on the faculty and I think I know why.

Having said that, why did I get the feeling as I was reading this post that I was reading Ben Cole's blog instead of Wade Burleson's? Did Ben feed you this information? Did Ben "ghost-write" this one for you? It sure reads like it.

BTW, how do you so much about seminary when you've never attended one?

Perhaps I misunderstand your comment...but the words 'teach' and 'authority' are both in the passage. I am simply arguing that, though we may debate what 'authority' means...we cannot debate what the word 'teach' means in the New Testament.

To your other points...no, the issue of having women elders/seminary professors/etc. has not been in debate throughout the centuries - unless you are referring only to the 19th-21st centuries. The last two hundred years is, comparitavely, recent history. And you will search in vain to find any major disagreement over the meaning of this text before that time.

"I have found a great many devout men and women who have a wide variety of interpretations of these and other passages regarding the role of women in the ministry and in the world" you said.

So have I. That doesn't mean that we may be mistaken. Some of my best friends are Presbyterians and I believe that they are mistaken in their understanding of baptism.

The point on this issue is that, historically, it is almost always a touchstone for the beginning of a greater doctrinal slide to come. Why? Because it requires theological gymnastics to prove that women should teach men in church settings. And one mental trick opens the door for many others.

Finally, am I arguing that no woman can teach a man in any setting? No. Paul is not referring to government, the workplace, etc. But he is clearly teaching on what is to be practiced in the church. and that said...again, the onus of proof is to demonstrate otherwise.

the bible teaches that a woman should not teach a man doctrine...she should not teach theology to a man...period.

i agree that the trustees made a mistake in hiring her. it looks as if dr. patterson may have not handled this in the best way. i dont know...i dont know all the facts. but, it was the right thing to do if she was teaching theology to men. she should not have been given that authority over men.

also, the govt. should keep thier nose out of the churches business. this is a matter of what we believe...doctrine. and, the govt. should have no say in this.

i do feel sorry for this woman and her family. she's probably a great christian woman. but, she should never have been at southwestern teaching men theology in the first place. and, like i said, if she was just teaching the hebrew language, then i wouldnt see a problem with that.

I agree with just about everything you posted. I was really heart broken to hear how this respected prof was treated.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, here, but you have championed that we each should be allowed to hold to our interpretations of Scripture. That's fine. But as I see it Dr. Patterson is holding his and is being criticized. For most of us it is easy to discuss and debate as we sit in our offices at our laptops.

But if this is what Dr. P believes Scripture teaches, then he has no other option than to act accordingly. Right? (of course, the whole thing about telling her that her job was secure is another matter)

But if he believes this is what is laid out in Scripture, then I cannot see why we are criticizing him if we believe that on non-essentials there should be tolerance.

I am very open to correction here. And like I said, I'm not being argumenative.

We shouldn't derail this post, but no where in the first two chapters of Timothy does Paul state expressly that these are instructions to be applied only in the church setting; therefore, it has taken some inference and mental deduction to get to that conclusion. The "plain language" simply says no authority, no teaching.

If I recall correctly, and I am not a seminarian, but I believe the early church fathers discussed the apostleship of Junia. That is one example, and of course there is Phoebe. Then, there is that pesky passage in Galatians about all being equal in Christ. Then, there is the notion that male domination is simply due to the fall of humanity and that Jesus' redemption has an impact on all of this... Anyway, I think we disagree, and we both believe in the inerrancy of the Word. I simply believe we humans make errors and pick and choose where we want to be plain language followers based on our teaching, environment, culture, humanness. I know I'm guilty of it. But I pray I will continue to grow in my knowledge of Him.

the context of the verse in timothy about women is the church....and doctrine...theology. the verse is very clear, and there is really no room for seeing it any differently. the only reason that people want to see it differently is that they are trying to make the bible and the church fit into the modern day culture of womens lib.

again, the church should influence the society....not the other way around. when are we gonna quit bowing down to the feminists and the evolutionists and all the other worldly groups out there who want the church to become like the world?when are we gonna have the guts to say...no...it shouldnt be that way. and, if the whole world doesnt like it...then, so what? as long as we are being the people that the Lord wants us to be.

also, i guess some of you have no problem with anne graham lotz preaching to men at the sbc meetings either? is that true? would you want beth moore to come and preach and teach in your church?

wow! where in the world is the sbc going if we are gonna start throwing out all the verses that oprah and katie couric and planned parenthood and prof. darwin dont agree with? where in the world are we heading when people are so willing to throw sound, clear teaching aside in order to fit into the world and be accepted by the worldly bunch. after all, God forbid that we should offend anybody.

Welcome. I can assure you I wrote every word of this post myself -- and my wife will add her late night 'amen.' You can also rest assured that 'Ben' fed me no information.

I know my share about seminaries. I have taken several courses from three and been on the campus of all six of our SBC seminaries and have very close friends on the faculty and admistration of several of them. I even played on the championship flag football team at SWBTS in 1981 :) I have no formal degree, but I must have paid close attention in class! :)

Volfan, I hope we are more like Jesus. I hope we are more defined by being a people of faith following Him, the Word, than we are by being opposed to people (Katie Couric or whomever). That's what I hope.

When did you last pluck out your eye? When did you last refuse to judge? When did you last go to the elders to pray and be anointed with oil when you were sick? When did you lack speak in tongues or refuse to forbid someone from doing so?

When did you last decide that one verse was for the historical context or simply metaphorical and another one was literal and applicable as "law" forever?

I would love to sit at the feet of anyone filled with the Spirit teaching God's truth.

We are all equal in Christ (Galatians 3) - no male, female, slave, free, jew, Greek. Yet Paul, who wrote Galatians 3 also found it necessary, at a later date, to write Ephesians 5 (wives submit to husbands, children to parents, slaves to masters.

What does this demonstrate? That freedom and equality in Christ do not negate that God has set order in His world and in His church...including order for how males and females ought to relate to one another.

As to the fact that nowhere in 1 Timothy 1-2 does Pauls pecifically state that these are rules for "the church"...you are correct. But you have not read on into 1 Timothy 3, where Pauls says (v.15): "I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the CHURCH of the living God..." Very obviously, Paul IS giving instructions on the church...not the culture.

So to pick up on, quote, and correct your thought:

"The 'plain language' simply says no authority, no teaching"...in the church (1 Timothy 3.15).

Finally, to argue that we disagree because "we humans make errors and pick and choose where we want to be plain language followers based on our teaching, environment, culture, humanness" is true as far as it goes. But it CANNOT and MUST NOT be used as an excuse just to brush over areas of contention. If we believe in the inerrancy of the Bible...we had better be as eager as we can to find out all of its truth, and to practice it "in love." We must pursue both...hard as it is.

My whole contention in this thread is simply that it doesn't seem like anyone in this string of comments is trying hard to really grapple with the truth of 1 Timothy 2.

My question to him, and you, is this: "Do you wish our convention to head this 'consistent' path -- if so, one of these days every SBC woman will be wearing a hat and a burka, will not be allowed to speak at all with men present, will be only mothers and grandmothers in occupation --- all because of a consistent misinterpretation of the text.

I just spoke to Les on the phone, and I told him exactly what I have written. I told you about the Klouda thing months ago. We never mentioned it again until you called last week and told me that you had visited with Dr. Klouda and several others who knew details of the case. I confirmed from my own knowledge of the events what you had heard.

The research was yours. The story is easily traced through a series of press releases and previous blogs.

Not at all!!! I'm just curious as to how we can out of one side of the mouth argue for unity in the essentials and charity in the non-essentials and then criticize Dr. P?

For most of us though, we never have to act on these matters. We are not in a position to have to decide on whether or not we should release a woman from a position. For Dr. P though, he does. So while I agree with you that this was wrong, and I don't want the SBC to go in this direction, how can I argue that he doesn't have a right, as the chisen leader and with the full backing of our elected trustees, to do this when this is what he believes the Bible sets forth?

Kurt, the only I hear saying let's not grapple for the truth is you. You've determined the truth in your mind. I'm saying that many question that and are also trying to ascertain the truth. You won't even admit that there are reasonable questions about the passage.

The only reason there isn't grappling over the truth here, and the only reason I haven't offered more flesh to the argument, is because this post isn't really about a proper interpretation of 1 Timothy 2; it is about a wrong committed against a fellow believer, not just under the law of the United States but under the law of love.

I am objecting to a narrow interpretation of the text that EXCLUDES women from positions over MEN in a classroom (they can't teach Hebrew, theology, etc . . .), and I am saying that this view, which is common to Islamic Fundamentalism, is inconsistent with the sacred text and the New Covenant in Christ.

In other words, a Bible believing, BFM affirming, evangelical scholar WHO HAPPENS TO BE A WOMAN is removed from SBC service.

WHO, and I ask this again, WHO is for this? Our convention? The trustees? You? Me?

1. What if federal law tells us we have to ordain homosexuals, or stop preaching the gospel? Will I have to edit my interpretation of the Bible to please Washington?

I think that the federal law has nothing to do with this if we find that federal law contradicts Scripture.

2. Should seminary professors (those who train our pastors) be held to a different set of standards than pastors?

I think you are making a false distinction, there.

3. I am happy to disagree with your interpretation of 1 Timothy 2.12 ;). But I honestly could not tell what it was. All I saw was your paragraph on how "Some have interpretted" this passage (i.e. the Diana reference)...but no actually exegetical conclusions of your own...and no handling of the word "teach" which is exactly what the issue at hands has to do with.

So the third question: Can you spell out for us your philosphy of gender roles relative to 1 Timothy 2.12.

Wade,These are disturbing happenings to say the least, although not entirely surprising. Gender discrimination such as you have detailed has the potential to lump us in with several other ultra conservative denominations.

I think that this will marginalize a large number of wonderful members of our denomination, both male and female. Is this healthy for our denomination? What does this communicate to the lost?

As far as the sniping goes...bad shooting. The round was blown off course by the hot air of the shooter. In fact, I was personally encouranged by this revelation. I respect what God has done with His ministry through you even more.

Although I don't particularly like Patterson's biblical interpretation regarding women in positions of authority my real concern is with his deceptiveness early on regarding that interpretation. Supposedly he assured the faculty that there was no problem with current faculty when, in fact in his view, there was a problem with Klouda. I'm not sure what ethic allows one to state a particular opinion when, in fact, holding an opinion totally opposed to that stated opinion. I know what we call it in Tennessee, but I won't say that here.

Thank you, Kurt, for pointing out the context mentioned in chapter 3. As you might imagine, I quickly looked through the book and scanned my memory banks to support my initial thought and what I wrote. This is an example where discussion and the evolution of comments on a blog is a positive thing. I am teachable (and able to be reminded of things I already know, too); however, part of the reason I was being cursory on that issue is because it isn't really the issue of this post.

MOreover, consistent with your interpretation, that only goes to prove its inapplicability to situations outside the church, such as a seminary (although that would not be my interpretation). At the same time, if one sees no separation or dichotomy of our worlds (as Christians we should live Kingdom principles in all of our lives, not dichotomize between religious and secular), then I'm not so sure it's sound biblically to make much of taking a principle and saying, this is to be followed inside a church building but not anywhere else.

Kurt, I will also say I appreciate your consistency (about not applying it differently to seminary profs and pastors) and I also expected you to ask Wade the questions you have asked about federal law and the law of Christ. They are good questions, and we may, as a church, have to deal with some of them in the future. May God give us grace and may more come to a saving knowledge of Him.

I won't derail the post any further...unless Wade encourages us to do so!

But I would love for you to email me some cogent, biblical arguments for how 1 Timothy 2.12 might be interpretted NOT to mean that a woman is not permitted to teach a man.

That is all I have been seeking. You have given me Galatians 3 and 1 Timothy 1-2...and I have tried to demonstrate (from Paul's other writings) that those are not viable ways to get around 1 Tim. 2.12.

So let me hear from you. I am honestly glad to listen.

PS - see 1 Cor. 5.9-6.6 for a demonstration that there IS a difference in how we realte to the world, and how we function within the church.

"Patterson said he knew at the time that he would have to speak to the rumors one day, “But I sort of enjoyed watching the rumor mill work for a year," the Texas seminary president said. "Every once in awhile I've been known to feed one and watch how far it goes.” {Editorial comment: I am surprised at Paige's confession here and wonder if the content of some of the rumors he 'fed' will one day be revealed.}"

If this does not disturb the trustees at SWBTS then I wonder if they can be disturbed.

Nevertheless, there are reasons SWBTS has gone from the largest to the third largest seminary in the SBC in the last decade or so. If we as the SBC refuse to act rightly God is surely capable of making the appropriate corrections.

I can't help but wonder how this looks to a lost world when we treat our own with such a lack of love, compassion, and mercy. It appears that SW's loss was Taylor's gain. Let's all pray that Sheri and her husband's house in Ft. Worth will sell quickly so that they can be relieved of this financial burden caused by this calloused decision.

Kurt - I would like to add to your request that someone explain to me how slaves are NOT to obey their masters. I don't care what Federal laws say, the bible says they are to obey me. And woman should not speak, and they should keep their heads covered, and what is with all these ear rings and tattoos I have seen on ministers and missionaries. Explain to me how it is now OKAY okay to pierce the body and tattoo it. Those missionaries and pastors need to be dismissed.

Kurt, 1 Corinthians 5 and 6 fit exactly what I am saying. We live under the Kingdom and its principles, not under the world's and shouldn't be creating a false dichotomy. Some would wonder whether our interpretation of the Timothy passage in question is the result of applying the world's principles (as they were until recently) to the Kingdom rather than the other way around....

wade, i'm sorry for still going far afield here. ugh. and occasionally showing my ignorance, too. i sometimes use these comment strings as opportunities to be taught...imagine that. i think it's ok to admit i don't have all the answers... i'm still looking for them.

Mo-scratch... yes. There are so many places we pick and choose... you've added to my list above.

You are having a good discussion, but I agree with Bryan . . . it has little to do with my post.

Unless you believe that a woman cannot, on any occasion, teach a man, and unless you believe that a woman, cannot have a position of authority over a man, as do the Fundamentalist Muslims, there is no way to justify relieving a professor from teaching Hebrew because she is a woman.

There is a well written book on this subject "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, A Response to Evangelical Feminism" edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. Twenty two male and female authors contribute. I highly recommend it.

As someone who often disagrees, I must say that I could not agree more with your post. While I have not met Dr. Klouda, it appears she is to be commended for her Christ-like reaction to this wrong. As someone to whom Dr. Patterson has been personally kind on more than one occasion, I must say that I am disappointed (naive?).It is unfortunate that the SBC, in the effort to avoid the slippery slope of liberalism, sometimes falls over the other cliff into legalism.Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

In regard to your question about Dr. Bullock and Rev's comment, yes, my point of view would be the same as Rev's.

I absolutely despise what has happened to Dr. Bullock, Stookey, Klouda, and others. I am a SWBTS alumni and I have many concerns about what's going on there. However, I feel that I can speak on SWBTS issues because I am a SWBTS graduate. I would not presume to criticize any actions of any other SBC seminary mainly because I'm not part of their families.

I'm sure you're a highly intelligent person and you must feel you have no need for the instruction which SBC seminaries provide. If so, then that's your choice.

But do me a favor and let someone who paid their hard-earned money and put in countless hours of blood, sweat, and tears in fervent study address seminary issues. Since you have chosen not to complete the seminary education process, your credibility about the merits or detrimental aspects of seminary life is sorely lacking.

If Ben had written this article, I would have no beef. He's been through a SBC seminary. Sorry if I seem a bit upset, but as an alum of the school that you continue to take to task, I take it very seriously when my school is attacked. Surely there are plenty of disgruntled SWBTS alum who would be in a much more credible position to address seminary concerns.

Ben,

Yes, you did call me about three minutes after I posted my comment. At the beginning of our conversation you denied my direct question of whether you provided any information for this post. Later in the conversation you said that you "filled in some blanks" to Wade. If that's not providing information, then I guess I don't know what is. Good try, young man. Why are you so defensive?

Les-Your comment that only seminary graduates should tackle seminary matters would eliminate virtually all Southern Baptists and many trustees. It is preposterous to think that any well informed person cannot point out problems in an institution. It is an elitist mentality, it sounds like to me.

I guess since I haven't served as a trustee, I should not question poor decision making; since I never been a missionary, I should not check to see if policy lines up with scripture. Since I'm not a trained journalist, maybe I shouldn't blog.

Please don't allow your questions over how this post came into existence overshadow the facts brought out by it. You may not like the fact that Wade wrote it, but don't insult the self learned scholars who never had God's leadership to go to seminary. You don't need an M.Div or Ph.D. to know something wrong has happened.

volfan-It's hard to teach the Hebrew language, in a seminary context, without teaching the Bible. It kind of sounds like you wouldn't support it anyway. BTW, did you support Dr. Condaleeza Rice speaking at the SBC in Greensboro? She was preaching whether you call it that or not.

What a bunch of double talk crap! Page can have his wife employed, teaching, but Dr. Klouda is fired.

And then he stands behind a verse written by a man during the age of women being property to justify himself. oh, but his wife is somehow exempt, Total crap!

To each and every one of you who are slighting women. If God didn’t want them to teach, wouldn’t He have limited their abilities, not given them the desire, SOMETHING? But I will stand on the verse which states that God gives you the desires of your heart! And To EACH a gift is given…. If it’s teaching, then teach!

Get off your high horse! I feel like I am listening to a bunch of Pharisees.

GOD called her to teach and God forgive us for being such Pharisaical morons that we got in Your way yet again……..

I would like for you to think through something Les. If I and others (including about ten people) know that I wrote every word of this post (and they do), and if I and others have documentation of the research for this post, and none of it involves Ben (and it doesn't) . . then, you lose credibility in our eyes with your last statement. I would seriously consider thinking through your words before you pen them.

Let me hasten to add that I am flattered that you believe my writing is as good as Ben's. Let me also quickly add, I wish he had written it. But, unfortunately, I am responsible for every single word. Ben's only suggestion was to remove a sentence -- which I did -- after it was posted.

I am a graduate of SWBTS so I have paid my dues and sweated the appropriate number of blood drops--now I can share my opinion.

None of us should be surprised at Paige's actions. This is how he has always operated--and always will operate. He is in total charge at SWBTS since he personally selected the majority of the current trustees. I have watched him operate in public and private for over 20 years so this is certainly nothing out of his character.

The only way things will change is for the trustees to mandate the change. We need to write them personally and share our discomfort with Paige's latest actions.

Wade, it might be good to publish at least the email address of the Chairman of the Trustees so we can write him personally. It can and will make a difference!

Let’s take a look at a quote from Dr. P which is taken from the now defunct Baptistfire website which Tom Ascol addressed here: http://www.founders.org/blog/2006/05/dishonest-calvinists-and-call-for.html

“When you are called to a church, be sure that you are a man of integrity and you disclose your full theological position to the church to which you are called. Many a church has called a pastor only to find, only to discover, a couple of years in that he is determined to take the church in the direction of a Calvinistic church. He never told them that up front. He may even have deliberately misled them. One of my sorrows in hiring professors across these years is that I've often asked that question and gotten a misleading answer and found out later that this man was in the classroom perpetuating the system of Calvinism.”

And now my revision and application which, hopefully, speaks for itself.

“When you are called to preside over a seminary, be sure that you are a man of integrity and you disclose your full theological position to the Trustees to which you are called. A seminary has called a president only to find, only to discover, a couple of years in that he is determined to take the seminary in the direction opposite to which the Trustees had already established. He never told them that up front. He may even have deliberately misled them.”

As for the remainder of the quote below, why did Dr. P just let it be known upfront what he’d planned to do?

“One of my sorrows in hiring professors across these years is that I've often asked that question and gotten a misleading answer and found out later that this man was in the classroom perpetuating the system of Calvinism.”

Wade, Kurt and I have had a great discussion off line. Thanks. I'm sure we will continue to dialogue. Along the lines of the points Mo-Scratch and I brought up, people should check out this post and comments over at Jesus Creed.

I served a church in VA where we called a senior pastor who completely restructured our Bible Fellowship Department so that most classes had two teachers one man and one woman...

My pastor, who recieved his Masters from DTS and his doctorate from SEBTS meticulously walked the church through the process of this change. He handled the issue about woman teaching men in a humble, expositional fashion with grace and clarity (teaching vs authority). The church voted overwhelmingly to support the new new structure...and many have come to know the Lord because of it.

The mother of a former staff member called her son and told him about what we were doing. That indvidual...called Dr. P and asked him about the issue.

Dr. P responded that my pastor was wrong and has mishandled scripture.

My pastors response: We do not answer to Dr. P, but as a denominational servant...he answers to us (the local church)...I wonder when some of our denominational leaders will remember this...

I wonder when Southern Baptists will once again understand this and take a stand and work for a correction in the swing of the pendulem

In 1 Corinthians 14 (where Paul said we ought to limit speaking in tongues), Paul instructs them that the women must keep silent in church because otherwise they would be violating the law. I'm guessing we do not have such a "law" in effect for us Christians, today.

Then in 1 Timothy, Paul says:

1 Timothy 2:12: I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. NIV)

Interestingly, he does not say "you should not" or "they should not" or "no one should". I don't want to think about that, though.

The word silent (thanks, Mr. Strong) means to desist from language. If you can make a case for a woman not teaching, you can make a case for female students not being allowed to speak in class.

Do you suppose the "violate the law" had anything to do with his statements to Timothy? I'm betting they did.

I don't think God is pleased by all this. No matter how anyone dresses it up with fancy words.

I have a question that I would like for those who support this one-sided, narrow view of 1 Timothy to answer -- when does a boy become a man? In other words, when should a woman stop being a teacher of young boys? 13, 16, 18? When? Oh by the way, please provide Scriptural backing for your position?

Wade -I took an "I-term" class (M-F 8:00-5:00 class) at SWBTS last week. The class was "Teaching and Administration" taught by Dr. Robert DeVargas.

Our guest lecturer for a few hours was Dr. Terri Stoval. I say all this to say that we had the particular discussion in class regarding the age Drs. DeVargas and Stoval believed males should be taught by men.

The conversation turned into an explanation of the age a boy would have a BarMitzvah (s/p?) and become a "man." Therefore, according to both Drs. Robert DeVargas and Terri Stoval, the age is probably around twelve.

As a SWBTS graduate I'm personally grateful that some would be bold enough to call this present administration into accountability. I recall other presidents who have been called into accountability and have ultimately been removed from office. Here is a man who has held everyone accountable. Why should he not in turn be accountable for his own actions? If he cannot honor authorities over him (such as the laws of the land) then who is he to make declarations of authority in regards to women? This all seems a little warped and shady.

You are entitled, Wade. You may not be a graduate of the seminary, but as a Southern Baptist this seminary belongs to you, and your church members as well. You, along with every Southern Baptist have the right to hold our seminaries and their administrators accountable. In the case of this gentleman, it is perhaps long overdue.

I would venture to say the Burleson family has "sweated" for the sake of SBC seminaries far more than you.

Are we to say to the people that paid for our seminaries that they can pay and pray but never say anything about or to our seminaries?

That would do away with many trustees and donors. It is funny that you as a seminary graduate do not understand how the convention works. Any cooperating "WMU Granny" knows she can question any action of any seminary official. How do you think we won the Resurgence?

I know Ben did not write this. We talked about it when it happened, but due to Dr. Klouda's situation we did not "push" it. Wade did this on his own. It is high time someone did. You may grieve about the situation, but it reminds me of Bill Clinton saying: "I feel your pain."

As for Ben Cole being a young man, you are right, he is, but I am not.So, let me say: To go toe-to-toe with Wade on a valid issue is proper anytime. To give him the kind of "kidney shot" you did about his not having a degree from seminary is never proper at anytime.

We have had far too many "kidney shots" thrown in the SBC during the last several years. It is time for it to end. I would think you would be above that, but I thought many people were. I was wrong.

no one is saying that a woman cant teach men hebrew, greek, spanish, or algebra. the context of the verse is in the church setting. the context is teaching doctrine, theology....teaching the bible to men.

i didnt ask condie rice to speak to the sbc, and frankly, i wish that we'd get away from having govt. leaders speak at the sbc. i would not call what she did preaching. a long way from it.

so, wade and marty, you would not have a woman preach in your church, but its ok for her to preach to men outside the church? in a seminary?

what a pathetic wimp i would be to sit in the congregation, or in a classroom, while my wife taught me the bible. can anyone say the word...pantywaist?

i went to mid america baptist seminary. we had a woman teach us english...which every person had to take. and, we had a woman teach us to lead singing....because the need may arise in some smaller churches. and, women were not allowed to get masters of divinity at mid america.

i would also say that many of you are handling the bible fast and loose in your arguements for a woman teaching over a man. many of the other verse yall are bringing out are taken out of context. i seriously wonder if its out of ignorance that you do it, or if you are just that willing to throw out clear teaching when it doesnt fit with your desire to fit into feminism.

I have patiently read this post and every comment. All I can say is if I had a choice of a church to attend, I would hope, pray and desire a church where a person with the character of Wade Burleson. Rarely do you see such courage combined with humility. A couple of the guys on this thread should be learn to blush when they write their personal attacks on Wade, but yet he answers them graciously every time. The character of the writers in this comment string is evident. As my grandma used to say, 'The proof is in the puddin.'

Since you play slow and tight with the Scriptures I'm going to have to assume that you do not allow women in your church to braid their hair or wear jewelry and only wear inexpensive clothing (all of that is in the immediate context of 1 Tim. 2:12).

As for this: "no one is saying that a woman cant teach men hebrew, greek, spanish, or algebra. the context of the verse is in the church setting," actually someone is saying that. He's the President at SWBTS.

This is so sad. With regard to the interpretation of 1Timothy 2:12, I find it absolutely remarkable that we (the SBC) interpret every statement on the roles of women in the church figuratively EXCEPT 1Timothy 2:12. We don't require women to have long hair (when they pray or prophesy and isn't prophesying by definition teaching?) (1Corinthians 11), We do not require them to be silent in church (1Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1Tim 2:11), We don't require them not to wear jewlery or fine clothes (1 Tim 2:9-10). Can anyone explain why we interpret only 1Timothy 2:12 differently from the others? Is there anything in the text or context that demands it? The answer is NO. I have corresponded with Dr. Patterson on this matter and asked him the same question. His response? I will write a book about it someday. He was kind enough to tell me that the passage on hair length was culturally influenced and that only the eternal truth behind the cultural manifestation was intended for all places and times. When I asked why the same exact reasoning couild not apply to 2Tim 2:12, I got no answer.

I would suggest that the interpretation of 1Tim 2:12 alone as literal completely eliminates the credibility of the SBC position on all of these matters. We are doing PRECISELY what we are so fond of accusing liberals of doing. We are picking and choosing arbitrarily that which we will take literally and that which we will take figuratively or just plain ignore. It is not based on the text or context, it is based on nothing more than personal preference and tradition (which is one of the reasons Dr. Patterson gave for supporting a literal interpretation of 1Tim 2:12. Excuse me, but I thought Baptists were among those in the reformation who decided that tradition should not be give the same weight as the Bible. We seem to be willing to call on traditions we like, but ignore those we don't like. Again, this absolutely eliminates our credibility. It is amazing to me that the President of a Seminary, who has no answer to the valid question of why we interpret 1Tim 2:12 differently that all these other passages, nevertheless is so certain he is right that he is willing to ruin someone's career.

I understand that God will take care of her, but that does not preclude any of us, including Dr. Patterson, from treating people with simple Godly decency. I don't really care whether this is exempt from U.S. law or not, but we are fools if we do not remember that Baptists were late holdouts for segregation (backed by a rather strange but absolutely believed interpretation of scripture) and probably would still be there if not for that evil Democrat LBJ and those evil liberals in Congress. Can we learn nothing from history? This is such a glaring case of arrogance based on nothing but opinion, without rational refutation of the problem noted above, that it amazes me that there are defenders of it. I suppose I should not be surprised by anything by now, but I am an incurable optimist-it's the triumph of hope over experience (which was a favorite phrase at the beginning of each semester when I taught at a Baptist College).

a woman preaching or teaching men in church...in seminary....in sunday school...in the sbc annual meeting...anywhere is wrong. its not Gods design. i know that you are laughing at me for believing this, and i believe that you compared people who believe like me to islamic fundies. wow! how irenic of you. how Christlike. thanks.

i would see nothing wrong with women teaching women, and i see nothing wrong with men and women sitting in a class discussing the bible. but, but, when a woman is put in a place of authority over a man in a teaching the bible...as the authority in the room....then, there's a problem.

wade, so, you see no problem with anne graham lotz preaching to the sbc? just wondering.

listen, if dr. klouda was just teaching the hebrew language...then she should not have been let go for that. but, if she was a theology prof. then she should not have been hired to do that to begin with.

again, thanks wade for being an example of irenic...for speaking in such a nice way as you called us islamic fundies and narrow. thanks. for the ridicule and laughing at us. for not getting on the people in this comment thread who were not very nice with their words to us. i will try to follow your example.

volfan007

ps. as john moeller said...Get off your high horse! I feel like I am listening to a bunch of Pharisees...and, people who disagreed with you were called narrow and shady and warped in other comments. but, islamic fundies? c'mon wade.

Thanks for bringing this issue to light. I am very dissapointed in SWBTS over this situation. With all of the speech coming from this seminary about the "local" church, one would think a consistent approach to such a belief would be the recognition of the difference between a church and a seminary. Even if 1 Timothy 2:2 prohibits women from teaching men in ANY church context (and when compared with other texts, such an assertion is quite bold), the context is still the church. Dr. Klouda was not instructing as a pastor. She was providing instruction as a scholar, and from what I understand, a fine scholar. Furthermore, the way this woman has been treated given her family situation is shameful.

At the same time, I would urge that we don't appeal to "discrimination" laws in this case for the same reasons already indicated. Private religious institutions should have the right under the law to do such things. Once the government starts telling a theological seminary where it can and cannot discriminate, we are in trouble!

No one should get into legal trouble over this, but copius amounts of hot water should be applied by our churches for this kind of behavior. Bottom line: I don't find this illegal, but I do find it shameful and double-tongued.

Volfan, Please carefully read posts before taking them personally. The statement to which you refer was that refusing to allow women to teach is a characteristic of Islamic Fundamentalism. First, this statement is true. Second, it was not applied to anyone on this thread. The context (if I can be so bold as to apply a biblical method of textual interpretation to a non-biblical source) indicates that Wade is asking several times, who is for this. He doesn't say Volfan is for it and is an Islamic Fundie. Sheesh! One other thing. I am really tired of your use use of irenic (DRIPPING WITH SARCASM). Fine, you made your point; I don't agree with you about it, but that's OK; can't we just move on someday? Are you planning to use it until you rile Wade? Well he seems to be highly resistant to riling (ah, irenic).

Thank you, Stephen, for speaking articulately and intelligently to the issue behind the issue. Those who disagree aren't listening, but you have spoken well. I suggested a post earlier in this string; I'll suggest another. http://vtmbottomline.blogspot.com. Excellent. Frankly, I hope that this post, the facts contained herein, and disagreement written like that of volfan's gets published widely even though it is incredibly sad.

I would say, as honestly and humbly as possible, that I am a very, very "conservative" Bible believer. How "conservative"? To the point that if it had been "my" decision alone, I would never have hired female professors (even outstanding ones like Drs. Klouda & Bullock) for the School of Theology.Having said that, I find it appalling and heartbreaking -- heartbreaking -- what happened to these two ladies, one a colleague and one a friend.

It is wrong, just plain wrong, that the "conservative" trustees hired and then fired them. The trustees should've been consistent with their position. They haven't been, quite frankly, and that's the problem. But why should this surprise us? Some of these "leaders" have long been silent on this very matter when "their own" violate "their rules." Am I wrong?!?

The late Betty Criswell, wife of the famed W.A. Criswell of FBC Dallas, was the teacher of the largest SBC Sunday School class (hundreds of members) for decades. Who sat under her teaching week after week? Women *and* men. Her Sunday School class was broadcast every Sunday morning by KCBI (Criswell Communications).

We should at least be able to expect a consistent application of the position. We haven't had that, though. This has spilled over into other areas. One week, for example, one of these leaders declares that "Calvinism" is both a heresy and the death-knell for evangelism, then the next week while speaking at chapel at Southern Seminary praises Al Mohler for his biblical fidelity, academic excellence and commitment to evangelism. Which is it?!? Abortion is denounced at the annual convention, yet pro-choice Condi Rice addresses the messengers. Which is it?!? Jerry Rankin is praised as a "solid Bible-believer" and as an outstanding leader of the IMB, yet one wonders how "solid" he is since he can't serve as a missionary due to his "private prayer language." Which is it?!?

I prayed for Sheri and her family this afternoon, and trust that you all have and will as well. Wade, my thanks to you and the folks in Enid for helping to take care of the Kloudas.

There is tremendous irony in the fact that it was Paige Patterson, then the president of the SBC, who, at the 1999 meeting of the SBC (in Atlanta) appointed not one, but two, women to "have authority over men" in the formulation of the most concise expression of doctrine we Southern Baptists supposedly adhere to.

I was taught by Dr. Karen Bullock. Baptist Heritage. God has blessed me through several instructors at SWBTS. I can say that I have learned from them all. I can also say that if Dr. Bullock was not the best instructor I have had, she is tied for that honor!

The text for Baptist Heritage was McBeth's "The Baptist Heritage." I will never forget the section where McBeth discusses women in SBC life. The following is cited from: McBeth, Leon. Women in Baptist Life. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1979. p. 120.

The Woman’s Missionary Union president, Mrs. W. J. Cox, was invited to give the report for 1929. A number of men objected and introduced a resolution that “we earnestly protest the president of the W.M.U. or any other woman addressing this Convention.” It appeared Mrs. Cox might not be allowed to speak, but the convention president, George W. Truett, said firmly, “Brethren, let us hear the gentlewoman.” Truett’s powerful personality carried the day, but even so some men walked out. In addition to her report, Mrs. Cox could not refrain from ad-libbing, “No woman went to sleep in the garden. No woman denied Him. No woman betrayed Him. But it was a woman, acting in intuition, who tried to save Him.”

Wade,This is a second tier issue for me. I would and have left a Church over this issue(amongst others). Two Rivers Baptist here in Nashville.Several points need to be made.1.If anyone does not know Paige Pattersons view and methodology on this issue then they are living under a rock....no suprises here.2.Most evangelical missions hold to a complimentarian view and require the missionaries to adhere to this position.3. The teachers and preachers who I admire the most adhere and teach this positionJohn MacArthur,Al Mohler,Ligon Duncan,Alistair Begg, John Piper4.Its not about her civil rights..its about the sufficiency of Scripture. PeriodBTW....Iam a Reformed Baptist and also a Southern Baptist. Iam a Reformed Baptist first!5.Taylor University is much like Wheaton College....a bastion of Egalitarianism.hint....Methodist and Calvinist rarely see eye to eye.6.If this is Your idea of the new Southern Baptist Convention then I would you to repentance!

Sometimes I feel like just knocking my head on a brick wall when I read things such as this. It seems the rules bend if ones name is Patterson. God help us.

Thank you for your affirmation of women Wade as well as others, as a woman who has been through discrimination since the 1970's when there were no laws to protect us, I'm tired of fighting the same old battles and glad to see some from the male gender appalled by this kind of treatment and bringing this to light.

As I was going through some of my notes from Baptist Heritage class, I came across two documents I found interesting in light of the topic of this post.

The Report of the Baptist Faith and Message Study Committee. That committee was appointed to review the 1963 BF&M “for the primary purpose of adding an Article on The Family, and to bring the amendment to the next convention for approval.” This committee consisted of seven people. Mary Mohler and Dorothy Patterson were on that committee.

A motion was then made at the 1999 SBC meeting in Atlanta to appoint a “blue ribbon” committee to review the BF&M. The president of the SBC that year was Paige Patterson. He appointment the committee of fifteen. Included on that committee were Susie Hawkins and Heather King.

Volfann, Steven Pruett says it well for me. I sincerely apologize if you felt it was personal, because I definitely never intended it that way. I am simply asking, "Who in this world is for women keeping silent in the presence of men, and never having ANY position of authority over a man" and I named a group as the ONLY people I know who desire that.

This "rant" isn't directed at any one particular person who has commented. I am amazed at how it didn't take but just a few comments on this post to turn into a "theological discussion" of a woman's place. (Never mind that this issue didn't take place in a local church. I've yet to see anyone give one Scriptural reference concerning the Pauline guidelines for teaching in seminaries during the Apostle's time.)

We are dealing with people's lives here. We are dealing with a woman who was hired to do her job, apparently did it very well, was (it appears to be) the primary breadwinner in her family, and yet was fired from her job because she was a woman. When our "theology" trumps showing love and compassion to one another, I fear we have come very close to being just like the Pharisees. Jesus loved people. Jesus died for people. Jesus didn't die for a "system". If anything, when I read the Gospels, He was always having to correct the Pharisee's view of the "system" and remind them of what He truly saw as important. It hurts to see saints of God like Sheri Klouda treated with such disregard. (Thank you Wade for your church who helped them out during this time)

I can't help but think of the Scripture of Micah 6:8 "He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?" I don't think a lost world looks and says, "wow, look how they hold to their theology"? Maybe we should remember that we will be known by our love for one another. I wonder how many lost people looked at the treatment of Sheri Klouda by an institution which is supposed to be in the business of preparing future pastors and missionaries to share the love of Christ and was completely shocked when they saw nothing but hypocrisy, lies, and a lack of concern for her family. This kind of behavior might be expected in the "corporate world of business", but it certainly doesn't belong in an institution that claims the name of Christ.

Some have acted on this comment string as if there is NO alternative interpretation to the text other than the fact that NO woman can teach ANY man period. I thought I would simply show the following interpretion that was sent to me by a conservative evangelical from Canada which refutes that claim.

Paul did not leave Timothy behind in Ephesus to stop the false teachers AND to stop all women who are teaching correct biblical doctrine….he only left Timothy behind to stop the false teachers from teaching false doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3)

Paul says that he too had been deceived and he received mercy because of his fighting against the church was because he was ignorant of the truth and he had been deceived (1 Tim 1:13, 16)

Paul differentiates between those who were teaching false doctrines because they were ignorant and deceived (1 Tim. 1:3, 7)and those who were deliberate deceivers (1 Tim. 1:19, 20)

Paul names the deceivers (1 Tim. 1:20) but he does not name the ones who are deceived (1 Tim. 1:3, 6)

Paul gives instructions to Timothy regarding how the men and women who claim godliness should conduct themselves in the church while they are in the midst of the false teachers (1 Tim. 2:1-10)

All Christians should be praying for the lost even those who are lost in their midst – those who are embroiled in false doctrine (1 Tim. 2:1-4)

The Christian men in the congregation are not to handle the false teachers with argumentation that might come out even in their prayers (1 Tim. 2:8)

The women in the congregation who lay claim to godliness (1 Tim. 2:10) need to handle this false teacher situation with prayer as well (1 Tim. 2:9 “likewise” links back to prayer) and continue to produce good works (1 Tim. 2:10) and not expect that it is their appearance with elaborate dressing that will show forth the godly example, but their godly works (1 Tim. 2:8-10)

Paul then abruptly changes from the godly men and women (plural) to the singular form of woman and man and deals with a problem of false teaching and a false teacher.

Before Paul gives the prohibition, he gives the solution to one of the problems in the church. Paul instructs that “a woman” is to be given the opportunity to learn. This identifies the problem that she is not one of the deceivers, but one of the deceived. Paul never educates the deceivers – he names them, exposes them and shuns them. His solution to deception is education in sound doctrine and he never ever identifies the deceived.

Paul tells Timothy that he is not allowing “a woman” to teach or authenteo “a man”. It is out of context to even consider that Paul is here stopping godly women from teaching correct biblical doctrine. In context the prohibition can only be the stopping of false doctrine and stopping a false teacher. (1 Tim. 2:12)

We know this is false teaching that is being stopped because Timothy’s mandate to stop the teachers was only for false teachers. Also in the example given later of why the teaching is to be stopped, Paul ties the prohibition into the example of the first deceived woman (1 Tim. 2:14)

Whenever gune and aner are mentioned together in scripture in any type of relationship, they are always translated as husband and wife. Verse 12 should be translated as a single wife teaching/influencing her husband.

Paul has several times not identified people by calling them “a man” yet the context clearly identifies the “a man” as a specific person (2 Cor. 12:2, 5; 1 Cor. 5:1)1 Timothy 2: 11, 12 follows that example as two people are called “a woman” and “a man” without naming them. They are not named because the wife is one of the deceived and Paul never identifies the deceived ones by name.

Paul identifies the reason why the first man was not deceived and why the woman was. He refers us back to Genesis to discover the reason by stating that the man was created first and was not deceived and the woman was created second was deceived (1 Tim. 2:13, 14 and Gen. 2:8, 19)See Genesis 2:8, 19 in the Apostle’s Bible which is the modern English version of the Greek Septuagint where it is quite clear the education Adam had before Eve was created.

The grammar from 1 Timothy 2:15 requires the identification of a single female to refer back to “a woman” from verse 12. The “she” from verse 15 cannot be Eve because the tense is future and Eve is dead.

The only “she” in this entire passage that verse 15 can refer back to is “a woman” from verse 12. “She” and “they” are given instructions regarding her salvation and it is future tense.

1 Tim. 2:15 gives the answer as to whether the deceived woman can receive salvation even though she has been deceived by false doctrine. She (refer back to verse 12 the deceived Ephesian woman) will be saved through the Messiah born of the woman (the childbearing which is a noun and not a verb), if they (refer back to verse 12 the deceived Ephesian woman and her husband) continue on in their faith in God, love for the Savior, holiness, and self-control to stay away from false doctrine. This is how one deceived woman will be saved (and is a pattern for the salvation of all deceived teachers).

Summary: Paul was not making a universal prohibition that stopped godly women from teaching sound doctrine to men. He was stopping one of the false teachers in the assembly from taking her Christian husband down the proverbial garden path towards the forbidden fruit.

Okay. Wade says I'm not credible, but that's okay because I said he wasn't credible either. Then the Burleson brigade comes to help. Ben calls me on the phone and chastises me for daring to criticize Saint Wade; Marty calls me an elitist; CB assumes he knows how much I have supported or have not supported SWBTS in comparison to the Burleson family.

You're right, Wade. I'm not credible in your circle. I don't expect to be because there are too many stars in a lot of people's eyes here. When bloggers start bragging about being quoted by news organizations, it's apparent to me what the real goals of some SBC bloggers are.

I'll stick with the Joshua Convergence folks. They're not trying to overthrow the SBC.

that's a huge stretch. i totally dont agree with it. its clearly not what the bible is talking about there. also, i dont know many conversative, bible believing theologians, besides the one you mentioned and i dont know him, who would agree with you. do you?

volfan007

ps. if my use of the word irenic is seen as mean, then i will quit using it. also, i am not mad at you, wade. nor am i mad at anyone else in here. i dont agree with yall about women teaching theology to men, but i aint mad at nobody. also, wade, if she was just teaching hebrew, then i agree with you. what was she fired for. but, i thought you, or someone, in all this conversation, said that she was also teaching theology...not just a language.

and again, wade, would you be for anne graham lotz or beth moore or any other woman preaching at the sbc in san antonio?

WOW! I stumbled onto this post and read it and the comments with interest. How ironic that the most intelligent and Biblically acurate remarks were made by Elizabeth, a woman. Hmm... Comments contained in this blog illustrate exactly why the institutionalized church fails to make in-roads with the unchurched in this country; the loudest voices they hear are the arguments among "believers" over doctrine, and what "God hates", instead of the unity and love that Jesus said we would be known by. (BTW - if we aren't "known", Scripturally it is because we don't have unity and aren't being loving!) I completely understand that love doesn't release us from sound doctrine, but this is NOT a major point in Scripture, regardless of how you interpret it! This is straining a gnat while swallowing a camel, is it not? Please re-read I Corinthians 13, especially verses 1 - 3. I can state with certainty from Scripture that God cares more about the way Dr. Klouda was treated than the results of all of your doctrinal debates. So who/what are you trying to please, or perhaps more directly, worship?? The eternal gracious God of the universe, or your own understanding of His Word?? (Note, it is HIS Word, not your word!) Perhaps the "correctness" of your doctrine?? (I'm quite sure that we will ALL have surprises about "our doctrine" when we reach heaven.) Elizabeth, I was reminded of the very same Scripture you were as I read this blog, Micah 6:8. So everyone else, argue on. I'm afraid you are so deep in the trees you have missed the forest. May God forgive the church in this country and have mercy on us.

Elizabeth - thank you for expressing your insights.

Wade - thank you for exposing this atrocity, and your gracious responses.

Dr. Klouda - thank you for humbly, and with faith, enduring persecution. Your reactions are an inspiration. You have done nothing wrong, and God will reward your faithfulness.

P.S. - I am so proud of my alma mater, Taylor University. Thanks for doing your part to try to right a wrong. Way to go, TU!!

Wow Wade! I didn't know you hadn't graduated from a Southern Baptist seminary. I guess you're not a "real" preacher...haha I personally consider you one of the brightest lights we Southern Baptists have ever had--keep up the good work!

Pray tell folks, how in the world did we degenerate into a discussion about women preachers from a blog about a woman who was totally abused by Paige Patterson and SWBTS. Our trustees should be ashamed--and then get off their collective Baptist rears and rectify this situation.

when i, and others who agree with my stand, are compared to an islamic fundamentalist and called narrow and warped....i take that kind of personal. and, people who dont believe that women should teach men the bible....to usurp authority over the man...were called these things. i took it to include me. i dont like being compared to an islamic anything, especially not a shiite. and, i have never quite gotten used to being made fun of and laughed at. i guess its just me.

wade, i accept your apology. no problems. also, i dont see anyone wanting to keep women completely silent in the church, nor in the seminary, nor anywhere else. to me, its all a matter of a woman having authority over a man in being the teacher of the bible. its not Gods design.

2Ti_1:5The word translated genuine faith means “unhypocritical.” Paul rejoices when he recalls Timothy’s faithful grandmother Lois and mother Eunice, whose name means “Good Victory.” The prayers, witness, and faith of his godly mother and grandmother were central factors in the spiritual development of Timothy (see 1Ti_2:15).

2Ti_3:15from childhood: Paul emphasizes Timothy’s godly heritage (2Ti_1:5). His mother Eunice and his grandmother Lois had faithfully taught him the Holy Scriptures. The truths of God’s Word directed Timothy to Christ. God’s Word and the Spirit of God are both essential for our salvation. The Word of God without the Spirit of God is lifeless; it has no power to act. But the Word of God empowered by the Spirit of God becomes a living force in our lives.

The Bible as Resource for Family-buildingThe well-known inspiration passage 2 Timothy 3:16 is a statement not only of the Bible’s origin but of its usefulness in “teaching, reproving, correcting, and training in righteousness." Interestingly, the verse was a link between Timothy’s ministry at the time and his upbringing (2 Tim 3:15). Paul reminded him that the Scriptures that had molded his character in childhood now provided the foundation for his life’s work. Scripture played the crucial role in the impartation to Timothy of the same “sincere faith” possessed by his mother and grandmother (2 Tim 1:5).Ancient writers like Tertullian (died about A.D. 215) affirmed that the reading of the Bible formed the core of early Christian home life (To His Wife 2.8). Augustine (died A.D. 430) mentions the family’s reading of Psalm 101 for comfort in his mother’s home at her funeral (Confessions, 10.12). Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John (died about A.D. 155), commended the church in Philippi for constancy in family devotion: “I am confident that you have been well-versed in the holy Scriptures and have forgotten nothing” [To the Philippians, 12.1].Unfortunately much of this emphasis on family devotion dissolved during the Middle Ages. The Bible was restricted to the clergy, and more stress was placed on the scholarly study of the Bible. The Reformation (about 1500) did much to revive family devotional life, though not to the levels of the early Christian centuries. In recent years the practice has again fallen into neglect.Biblical family-building, however, depends on family devotion. God’s statutes and commandments are to be taught constantly. Children are to be raised to fear God and live obediently (Deut 6:1-8). Lovingly they are to be instructed and guided “in the Lord” (Col 3:21; Eph 6:4).Scripture encourages the family to create an atmosphere of devotion (Exod 12:25-27; Deut 12:7; Ps 78:1-8; Isa 38:19), where the Word of God is taught and consistently obeyed. Thus in Deuteronomy 6 children are taught as the parents make God’s statutes the constant subject of family attention. Negatively, this implies that the Bible must not be used inaccurately or improperly. Positively, it implies that the reading of Scripture takes place regularly. More importantly it implies that the Bible must be obeyed; and the Savior of whom it speaks, worshiped.

I didn't chasten you. When I choose to smite thee, you will feel it more acutely than an amicable phonecall. You needed not a smiting. You merely needed to be disabused of your faulty assumptions. I tried. I failed.

The Joshua Convergence is surely blessed along its merry converging way with you pulling oars in the hull.

Les, just a gentle correction. I believe if you read again my comment earlier I simply said when you say things that several people know are not true (for example, "Wade, you did not write this post"), you lose credibility. You can't lose it unless you have it.

Les-You were being elitist; I'm sorry you don't like it being pointed out.

Stop making elitist assertions and I'll stop pointing it out.

As I expected, you did not engage my points, you merely played games and talked down to those who believe Dr. Patterson has made a grievous mistake. You have done nothing but obfuscate the issue from your first comment.

Since you've not addressed the issue, I'm assuming that you fully support Dr. Patterson's action.

For you to believe a woman cannot teach the Bible to a man negates some really great work Southern Baptists like Lottie Moon, Beth Moore, and Ann Graham Lotz.

Nowhere is 'the Bible' mentioned in the I Timothy passage.

Would you interpret this passage to mean that a woman could not teach a man computers? Accounting? Hebrew? Theology? Why the first two, and not the last two? On what BIBLICAL basis do you wish to forbid the last two?

It is appalling what happened and I pray for God's care for her family.

Question: I teach at a Christian University in the psychology dept. I teach counseling skills and the like to would be counselors and pastors in the masters program. Should I only teach them psychological theory or should I teach them to use a Christian world view to search what is true or not in what they are hearing? If I do teach them integration of the two, then how do I do this without using Scripture? If I am not allowed to use Scripture, the truth and Word of God, then I have reduced their education to being no better than that of secular institutions. If that be the case, God help us everyone.

One wonders what Patterson thinks about the female trustees of SWBTS, who have been APPOINTED by the SBC to be in authority OVER him. And, as a poster above mentioned, Mrs. Criswell's teaching duties at FBC Dallas was a spur in Patterson's saddle, to the point that his complaining/disagreement about it got him a boot to the curb from CC.

There have been instances of men (graduates of institutions that PP was over) who have refused to listen to a women at some of of training times.

One instance I'm thinking of was when a lady, who co-taught with her husband and who was present, was going to teach a method of Bible Study that could be used in working with New Believers. She was giving them a "tool", NOT teaching doctrine or Bible or pastoring.

She didn't teach it. Her husband taught that portion.

What's worse? There are women who are oppressed by their husbands (men who have the attitude that they're the boss and no questions can be asked about their decisions). But these women can't complain or talk with others about it, because that would be a sin. These women are miserable and you can see it!

Wonder where the application is that husbands are to love their wives like Christ loved the church? He DIED for the church! Doesn't seem like these men are willing to die to their selfish desires.

This whole attitude has filtered down and is becoming a "no woman can tell me anything or teach me anything".

Well:

Men, don't go to the female doctor who is the best in her speciality, because she can't teach/tell you anything that a male doctor can't do better.

Men, don't listen to anything said by Beth Moore, because you absolutely can't learn anything from her.

Men, forget anything your mother ever taught you (after the age of twelve); it's not valid.

This is ridiculous!

God help us.

Thank you, God, that you have supplied Dr. Klouda's needs and will continue to do so!

labs comment is worth framing. If someone who knows how to fiddle with html can get to work on that we'll be the better for it.

Les, thank you for the good roll on the floor you've given me. The picture of CB Scott having stars in his eyes over Wade will keep me in good humor for a good month.

Perhaps it's just the stars in my own eyes, but I assumed that every individual who gives to the CP through their local church has a vested interest in all of our institutions whether they matriculated from them or not. Those poor saints in our church who've been giving, some of them for longer than you or I have been alive, will be disappointed to know that the only thing that counts is their signature on the check. I'm not telling them, myself. I'm too afraid of the consequences.

I have tried to avoid much of the swirling news and debates about Dr. Patterson's actions and attitudes. This story though was the final straw. I frustrated and sadden beyond words. At some level I feel helpless. I mean, who am I? Why would the Trustees care about what I have to say about these things?

Then I began to realize something. I am a child of the King of Kings. My thoughts, opinnions and ideas matter in this world. I sent the President's Office and email expressing my views on this issue and the direction of SWBTS. I do not know if he will read it or not. That is not of my concern. Things must change at SWBTS and within our convention or it will crumble upon itself. I love the work of SBC entities. God has a desire to use Southern Baptist even more than He has ever used us but we have to come back to Him.

We have drifted away and this firing is a perfect example of how far away from Him we have gone.

I attended Southwestern from 2001-2004 and first studied under Dr. Klouda then later served as her graduate assistant. I know her as both a great scholar and a woman of grace and dignity who cares deeply for both her family and her students.

Sadly however, I am not surprised. As a female student at SWBTS, I felt a marked change in the atmosphere the last year I was there. I was enrolled in the MDiv program, and there were times that last year I was made to feel that I had no place in classes which were required for my major. Although during this season of my life I am choosing to invest in our family, when I resume doctoral studies SWBTS will not be one of my options. Nor, if present trends continue, will one of our other SBC seminaries. As a Baptist woman who is deeply proud of her heritage, it grieves me to increasingly feel out of place in our convention.

I am glad that you along with others in the convention are keeping the membership up to date on issues that we can not on our own. I have some question about why we as brothers and sisters in Christ still always bring up the point of civil law. Is it not true that we are held to a HIGHER standard. Are we not told in scripture to not go to civil law for answers but to use Christ law of Love and treat people with dignity.

I hate that this happened to this professor and am glad that she has found another position. I am glad that some of the brotherhood has come to her aid in both word and deed. I feel that we should be doing something about this problem. From my stand point there is no differance between the greatest phd and a my SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHER from the third grade.

But, why use the world to settle a church problem. If we really believe that what he (Mr. Patterson) done was so bad then rebuke him take action through the church and school to let him know that we/he is/are held to a HIGHER standard without delay. I somrtimes feel that we as believers do not practice correction/punishment in the church enough. Why is he different then me. If I sin and am not held accountable, who failed. The sad part is that he may not know that he has done anything wrong, i.e. a molestor who was raised by a molestor may not see the sin till it is pointed out to them. "may not be good example but it has been used before."

I say this just as a thought as I read the post I felt the anger and distaste in the words. LOVE is the key.

Being one who practices law without a license, I do fear that the Dr. Patterson has put an SBC institution at risk of legal action: Legal action that could ultimately be precedent setting, which could do real harm to genuine religious liberty in the future. (Do you get what I'm saying Volfan?)

This was a HUGE mistake and should be met was an equally HUGE response.

As a Baptist, I hurt after reading this post. I feel sorry for a few “men” on here who are hell-bent on excusing this type of activity by trying to elide -- combining thereby confusing -- the issue at hand.

It is hard not to respond directly and personally to Dr. Patterson’s words and actions.

I rest in the fact that time after time we have been met with examples of competing visions for the SBC. Perhaps the Lord is using Dr. Patterson to compel Southern Baptists for the need for lasting change.

Les: I am scratching my head as to why you can read a heart breaking story like this and react as you have. Not responding to what happened to this woman and more like her, but instead attack Wade. "St. Wade"? That is certainly not the way I thought you would respond. Women shouldn't be treated this way Les. By Paige or anyone, yet it is happening. Not was, is. Does that not incense you? It should. Not whether Wade wrote this or not. Wade is honest, Ben is honest. Why can't you just accept that and deal with the issue?

By what you have said, are you condoning this action or just not wanting to believe it's true? I believe it's true sadly and I am thankful to have a minister who would not do this to women, being the husband to his wife that has her happy, healthy and being all that God made her to be.

Also your other comments are out of line, put away your spiritual measuring stick Les, it doesn't become you and just gives credibility to what I and others have been writing about all these months and over the past year. It seems Ben's phone call was simply following scripture on confronting a brother.

Volfan said "the only reason that people want to see it differently is that they are trying to make the bible and the church fit into the modern day culture of womens lib."

Since when is treating women well and allowing them positions of both learning and teaching in colleges and other places women's lib. I see in scripture where women were a large part of Christ's ministry, also what of the Southern Baptist women that Wade mentioned? Women's lib? That is an insult and furthest from the truth.

Sherrill: I would gently disagree that we are above the law. Romans 14 points this out. When someone breaks the law of the land, he or she should be accountable to the law.

Anger is a reasonable reaction, disgust even, when someone is injured. I see nothing but facts given here and it's hard to judge a person's emotions on a blog. But I'm angry about this and I believe it's justifiable anger. Paige Patterson is an educated man, surely it's no secret that this goes against federal and state laws. I wouldn't say ignorance was the problem with Dr. Patterson.

Dr. Klouda found another job against her will and with a substantial cut in pay. She did it against her will and just because she found another job, an injustice still occurred and should be brought to light as it has. It's wrong and we shouldn't just sweep it under the rug with a "well she found another job", that is adding insult to injury in my opinion.

Wade,I am amazed at the vitriolic tone of certain sharpshooters. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, granted. I however have to wonder if Les is as caustic to his flock and to the lost as he is in this forum. Out of the abundance of the heart the fingers typeth....

One last comment. CB, thank you for the post you wrote. To it I say Amen and Amen. It's men such as yourselves that make it easier to be a Christian woman and as Dorcas has pointed out, gives me hope for the SBC.

Wade,Thank you for standing up for truth when wrong has been done. It’s been well said that Patterson deceived the trustees and the victim by letting them think it was OK for a woman to teach Hebrew until he was well established before stabbing them in the back.

For history, Hemphill was a good president for SBTS, and the ‘us’ crowd was pleased except he was not a ‘hatchet man’ to get rid of unwanted professors. Thus the ‘call’ for Patterson. Patterson broke the school rules by calling each man into his office and explained the situation. Either they resigned with their retirement and a good recommendation, or they would be fired with no retirement and a bad recommendation.

I’m not a lawyer and don’t know if that was blackmail, extortion, a threat, or what, but I do know it was NOT Christian. One of the men, Budd Smith, was our interim pastor for quite a while—we loved him to death.

The inerrant Word of God is TRUTH. Anything but truth recorded in the Bible is not ‘breathed’ by God. This is said NOT to tear the Bible down but to build it up. The Bible must be interpreted through the eyes of Jesus with the aid of the Holy Spirit in determining truth and untruth.

In the first place, our hero Paul (and I do mean he is my hero of men in the Bible) was not God. All the words of Paul are not breathed by God as shown in (1 Cor. 7:12) “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord.” (Now this throws some people into a dither and they say, ‘No, Paul, you don’t understand; everything you say is from God’.) Did God say? (1 Cor. 1:14, 16) “…I didn’t baptized any of you except Crispus and Gaius.” “Oh, yes, I baptized the family of Stephanas. I don’t remember ever baptizing anyone else.” Was it Paul or God that had a bad memory? (I know I’m being picky, but I’m doing an ‘exegesis’ maybe.) And again in (Acts 28:18-19) “The Romans gave me a trial and wanted to release me…but when the Jews protested the decision…I appealed to Caesar.” Paul appealed to Caesar before Agrippa’s private decision, which had no protest from the Jews. Paul probably learned the decision days later by way of the grapevine.

1 Timothy 2: 12b “Let them be silent in your church meetings.” Can you see women being almost like property, and now they had freedom to speak in tongues? They probably went overboard in praising God. So much so Paul said strangers would think them crazy; no wonder he told them to be silent. Why did the BFM 2000 committee use only the first part of verse 12 if they really believed it was the Word of God? Skipping the last part tears down their thinking of the first part being from God.

1 Timothy 2:12a, “I never let women teach men…” The key word is “I.” The word “I” is Paul. He did not say, ‘God does not let women teach men.’

Paul tell us “why” he did not let women teach men. He did not say because Jesus told him what to say as he did elsewhere to prove his words. He used human reasoning. If he had said, ‘Because the cow jumped over the moon’ would we believe his words? He said, verse 13, “Why? Because God made Adam first, and afterwards he made Eve.”

Seniority? What’s seniority got to do with anything? When God chose people to do his work, he threw seniority out the window.

Paul’s last reason, verse 14, “And it was not Adam who was fooled by Satan, but Eve, and sin was the result.”

Hey! Adam told God—‘it was the woman you gave me.’ If God rejected this thinking from Adam, why would he say it through Paul? Rex Ray

One other thing strikes me about this whole sad mess ... it seems we have a propensity to believe that anything said to anyone anywhere in the Bible, applies to everyone, everywhere, forever. When it suits our own purposes. We seem to think that no one must ever dispute what we claim the Bible says, when we claim it says something.

Jesus told the guys that if they agreed on anything they prayed for, God would do it. I've heard that told to congregations and prayer teams for 40 years. And when folks agree about something and pray over it and it doesn't happen, we say there is some mysterious answer.

We don't want to consider the possibility that God DID promise that to them, but not to us.

Wade, this was a bold and much needed post for us to see. Thank you. I've read every comment and sat here this morning amazed at many of them, perhaps because of the 'female skin I'm in.'When Beth Moore speaks/teaches, she does so with the annointing of God. If one has a problem with her, talk to Him. As I've watched many of her Bible studies, I've brought them home and my husband watched them also. He didn't die In fact, he was blessed. You see, he isn't threatened, and more specifically isn't hung up on this word I see flying around here "authority over"This has been for some time a specific problem in SBC life, not just in regard to women, but as pointed out here, with seminary presidents. Some seem not to understand real authority and the responsibilities therein. Jesus had all authority and humbled himself, emptied himself. Men fight for more and more and argue who has more "authority". They tell me, as a woman, I have no authority.Is this the mind of Christ, who says we are to defer or prefer one another?I have, what God gave me. And brothers, sisters, He set me free. I am free indeed.By the way, Lottie Moon attempted to teach the man she was engaged to "doctrine." He was a professor at a seminary. She actually refused to marry him, because he could not be persuaded to leave his false doctrine. She went on to be faithful. He fell away. How sad, he was unteachable and wouldn't listen to this wonderful women, capable of teaching him.with that I am.... female

you know, in this whole vein of discussion....Jesus never sat under the teaching of a woman. none of the apostles were women. hummmmm...could that be telling us something? i remember the apostles telling the older women to teach the younger women....and, for moms and grandmoms to teach their children....but, i dont remember reading where a woman was teaching the bible to a group of people where men were present.

and wade, the context of the verse in timothy is about teaching the bible. its so plain and clear. its not about computers, nor algebra, nor languages, nor anything else. its about the bible...theology....doctrine. if a woman is seen as the authority in doctrine(bible teaching)over men, then she is out of place. it goes against Gods design.

God bless all of yall....especially the ladies in here. i thank God for my dear mother who taught me much about God...when i was a child. i thank God for my dear wife who is very happy in our marriage and in her role as a woman btw. i thank God for my daughter, whom i love very dearly. as much as i love her, i would be against her preaching at the sbc.

and, wade, i guess that means that you would be for anne graham lotz or paula white or joyce meyer preaching...not sharing testimonies...not sharing about mission work...but preaching and teaching the bible at the sbc in san antonio?

let me just share with yall some great insight from bart barber from praiseGodbarebones.blogspot.com....

Bart Barber said... "Paul was handling false teaching"

Now THAT is eisegesis, especially when the text itself gives the justification for the command in the immediately following verses (which is what we mean by "context").

The justification in the text has absolutely nothing to do with "false teaching" or, I might add, with Ephesian prostitutes. It is a theological argument from Adam and Eve, and the curse in Genesis 3.

So, unlike some of the other things Paul commands, if this one is culturally conditioned or improper, then Paul has interpreted the Old Testament erroneously (which would be fine) and has enshrined an erroneous interpretation of the Old Testament into the New Testament (which would not be fine...which compromises not only inerrancy but even the theories of "inspiration" of many moderates and liberals). To claim that the New Testament is erroneous in matters of theology and Old Testament interpretation is pretty far out there. Yet I do not see how one can avoid this result of the mad-dash culturally-conforming effort to ascribe 1 Timothy 2:12 to irrelevancy.

Finally, regarding the right of the federal government to mandate that our seminaries adopt and follow certain theological conclusions, certainly Debbie, it is your right to hold that position. It is merely not your right to redefine the idea of being Baptist to make it include a denial of religious liberty.

One simple question....Are we sure we know ALL the reasons for Dr. Klouda's departure from SWBTS? Just imagine the original post and all of these comments if we do not. I just think it is good for all of us to remember this when we keep going with all these kinds of rants. Does anyone else hear my crying? Instead of Jerusalsem I say... "Oh 'blogging world', 'blogging world', how long I have wanted to..."-Doug

You can rest assured that I double, triple and quadruple checked the 'reason' for Dr. Klouda's removal.

The student class guide comes out months earlier than the actual classes. When Dr. Klouda was not listed as teaching for the fall 2006 school program, her students in the 2005/Spring 2006 school year began coming to her to ask "Dr. Klouda, I wish to take you for ____ next fall, why aren't you listed as a teacher?"

Dr. Klouda scheduled an appointment with Dr. Patterson personally. All conversation previous was through underlings. Sheri Klouda asked Dr. Patterson, "What do you want me to tell my students when they ask me why I am not teaching?"

The response from Paige: "Tell them you are a woman in a position reserved for only men."

Before I posted this yesterday I made several calls with this question. Is there ANY reason for which Dr. Klouda was removed from her position other than the fact she was a female?

Unanimously, the answer was no.

However, I am not unaware of the fact, having been in a similar situation a year ago when I simply expressed dissent for an action of our convention, that multiple things can, and will be said, of a woman who has displayed nothing but loyalty to her convention, her superiors (refusing to answer the question about the person assigned to tell her that she was being removed because she was a woman), and PP himself.

Doug, I hope you are not one of those who have come to attempt to discredit Dr. Klouda. You will definitely answer to me if you are.

Am I missing something or is not verses 3 and 7 along with verses 18, 19,and 20 of chapter one of 1 Timothy not the context of chapter two as identified by the "therefore" of verse 1 of chapter two. One does not have to agree with the Canadian's take on chapter two, but to say that false teaching is not the context is a textual stretch.

Also, I think, as the some have indicated, this exact FORM of the word "authority" is Not found anywhere else. We may debate the meaning but, the grammer and context are pretty clear.

It so bothers me when a guy does not calculate properly for "windage" when shooting at long range targets. It causes so much collateral damage.

Let me help you so you may not be laughed at so much at the firing line. Always get your facts straight.

I did not speak of just SWBTS when I said the Burleson family has "sweated" far more than you. I was speaking of ALL SBC seminaries. It is a fact so don't deny it. In doing so you become a liar and you know it.

I have no stars in my eyes for Wade. He is not my type. I am still starry-eyed over the girl that "brought me to the dance" many years ago. Wade is "cute", but not that cute:-)

Lastly, I am in no circle. That is the easiest thing to document in all of Blog Town.I am an equal opportunity "sniper" and I always calculate for "windage" and elevation:-)I do not dwell in any "tent", nor do I live on either side of the "Great Divide of the Plains of Duren." I fly a Black Flag and perpetrate piracy anywhere in the high seas of the SBC I see a cargo of lies or hypocrisy floating.

You know, Les, like your "strawman" building, hypocritical statement relating to Wade and seminary degrees. Your "strawman" had nothing whatsoever to do with the Klouda issue. You were just throwing a "Dirty Kidney Shot" and it is that kind of hypocrisy that needs to end in the SBC. It is for that and that alone for which I trained my guns on your "little row boat."

Volfann, You keep asking about having Ann Graham Lotz or Beth Moore teach at the SBC.

Allow Dr. Bill Merrill and Suzie Hawkins, one of the most conservative men and women I have ever known respectively -- Bill is the former VP of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee and Suzie Hawkins is the wife of O.S. and was a member of the BFM 2000 Committee answer that question for me, from a Baptist Press news article on June 7, 2001.

- 'Susie Hawkins of Dallas, a member of the Baptist Faith and Message Study Committee, shares Lotz's desire to see women empowered for Christian service. But Hawkins suspects the characterization that there can be no women preachers in the SBC as a mistatement of the BFM 2000 (WB's editorial comment: Suzie uses the word "preachers" intentially instead of "pastors." 'Preach' is Gk. kerusso which means to 'proclaim' - as a rooster proclaims the rising of the sun --- preachers proclaim the risen SON. Again, to say there can be no woman preachers in the SBC is a misstatement of the SBC's doctrinal statement. Instead, she said, Article 6 of the BFM, dealing with the Church, states that "the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture."

Hawkins added, "Nowhere does it say that women can't proclaim the gospel. In fact, it is in this article that women are affirmed in the statement as being 'gifted for service.'" Hawkins noted that Lotz "never pressed the issue of women pastoring" in the 60 Minutes interview, but related the example of Mary Magdalene bringing the message of Christ to others.

Her suspicion seems to be confirmed in an interview of Lotz by Jim Jones of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram last year. Lotz stated that she agreed with conservatives who say a woman should not be a senior pastor. "I know Christians disagree on this issue, but I believe God has called me into the ministry where I am," she said.

Hawkins added, "In our own Southern Baptist tradition we have the obvious examples of missionaries Lottie Moon and Bertha Smith who were used greatly by God. But Mary Magdalene was not the spiritual authority for the disciples. She was their co-laborer, their partner in spreading the gospel."

From other interviews, Lotz has stated that she does not see herself as assuming an authoritative role when teaching. "I feel when I stand up in a pulpit I'm not coming from a position of authority," she said in an April 5, 1999, Christianity Today article. "Everywhere I go, I'm invited; if men have invited me [to speak], I'm under the authority of that committee. But I don't accept the fact that as a woman I can't preach to or teach men. My authority is the authority of God's Word." (WB's editorial comment: This is exactly what Suzie Hawkins and the committee of the BFM 2000 task force say the BFM 2000 means)

Hawkins also disputed the characterization of the BFM Study Committee as "an elitist group of men that issued some decree." Instead, she reminded, the committee was appointed in 1999 by then-SBC President Paige Patterson and included theologians, ministers and laymen, with two of the participants being women. "Upon the discussion of the issue of women in ministry, I am eager for others to know that the men on the committee were more than willing to hear the women's perspective." Once the revised statement was submitted to Southern Baptist messengers meeting last June in Orlando, Fla., it was approved overwhelmingly as the new doctrinal statement for the largest non-Catholic denomination.

Bill Merrell, SBC Executive Committee vice president for convention relations, agreed that the reference to the decision by messengers to last year's convention was misapplied in the case of the 60 Minutes interview. "The Southern Baptist Convention position is plainly stated in the Baptist Faith and Message that we understand the pastoral office to be reserved to men as qualified in the Scripture. To my knowledge, Anne Graham Lotz makes no claim to be a pastor. She exhorts and teaches and does so, I think, with a high degree of excellence."

- end of interview.

So, Volfann, to answer your question, NO I would have no problem with Ann Lotz or Beth Moore teaching the Scripture to men at the convention ---

Or Dr. Klouda teaching men Hebrew at Southwestern . . .

And anybody who does is violating the BFM 2000.

However, unlike some who wish to use the BFM 2000 as a club, I appreciate the fact that you do not agree with it. I will, however, seek to hold accountable those who exclude Southern Baptists from service and employment in cooperative ministry in the SBC for reasons that go beyond the BFM 2000.

Volfan, You have defended, numerous times I might add, why you believe according to your interpretation why Sheri Klouda should not have been teaching at the seminary. Do you believe she was treated fairly after she had already been hired to do this job? Do you think it was right for her to have been told that her job was secure, then fired? I'm really curious since you haven't addressed the issue of the poor treatment that Sheri Klouda has received, only the fact that you believe she shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Now that I've had 24 hours to cool off about this, I will make a couple of observations.

ONE: there is an old saying, "As the twig is bent, so grows the tree." It is a truism which is affirmed by the Bible (Proverbs 23:7 and Matthew 7:17ff come to mind) and in counseling situations, even in Christian counseling: that the ways one practices become patterns of behavior. Those paterns can be healthy or they can be dysfunctional; either way, they become part of behavior, whether for individuals or for institutions. Most of us in the pastorate have dealt with dysfunctional churches in one way or another, and know how contentious they can be--fires are always breaking out, in different places and over different triggers, but they vreak out. (Most of my ministry has been to such dysfunctional churches.) Without judging (condemning or praising) the value or need for the Resurgence, it is simply a fact that much of it was accomplished using methods which were unabashedly political and sometimes underhanded. Much, in other words, was accomplished in a dysfunctional manner, and that has become an institutional pattern of behavior in much of the SBC today. Look at what has happened at NAMB and the IMB for examples, much lessat SWBTS. What we are seeing over and over is instutional dysfunctionality in personnal matters; and issues like the ones over Dr. McKissic's chapel address and Dr. Klouda's employment will continue to break out until the dysfunctionality is addressed and corrected. That can be done, but it will require intentionality, energy, and effort.

TWO: the focus most in most people's theology, and often its content as well, is directed by their personality. It is rarely articulated, and almost never noticed, but it happens. It becomes an unspoken "criteria of selection," the lens through which we see issues and rank them in importance. The criteria for quite quite a few folks in the current leadership of the SBC and this thread focuses on "women" and "authority." I suggest that such a focus as one's criteria of selection is related to one's personality. Perhaps that is a "Type A Driven" personality; perhaps it is classic "commander" or "drill sargeant" style leadership; sometimes it is a lack of self-confidence or immaturity, there can be a number of possible personality-related reasons why someone adopts such a focuses. In fact, it can cease to be Biblical authority and become power and the exercise thereof--which is different altogether. Power is intoxicating, as President Nixon and Mr. Abrahamoff could tell us, and those who exercise it become adept at justifying it. But I suggest that while authority is a Biblical concept, it is not the overriding criteria that some atempt to make it. However the practice by a person--be that a pastor, a deacon, or a teacher--of servant leadership (Mark 9:35) puts that greatly into context and perspective. SO: was Paul inspired by God to mean that women are not to teach men anything at all, OR that they are not to abuse authority in teaching? And even if so, are there any limits? And even if not, why is this issue about Dr, Klouda, rather than the manner in which she was treated and dismissed?

The unsaved whom Christ directed us to minister and witness to are sometimes good observers. And they can often see our motives more clearly than we can ourselves. We musty not only be right--we must appear to be right as well.

I do not mind people attacking me. It is a sport which I happen to enjoy. :) I do not mind critical comments, and I have come to the point that I don't even mind slanderous comments about me -- the Lord has a way of using those for ultimate good.

However, I will not --- listen carefully --- I will NOT allow anonymous people to come on my blog and slander and attack Dr. Klouda.

I have discovered that when some peoples' backs are against the wall, and they cannot win the argument, there is the tendency to falsely malign the character and motives of others.

I made a promise that I would not allow that to happen to Sheri.

I may not catch it right away because of my busy schedule, but I would encourage anyone reading this comment string that when an anonymous comment appears that attacks Dr. Klouda's conservative credentials (which are impeccable), her teaching habits (which, according to students, faculty and anyone else who had the pleasure of being in her classroom were incredible) or her scholarship (which is unsurpassable in the SBC at this time - see today's SBC OUTPOST), you know somebody is getting very concerned.

If there are religious convictions that guide a religious convention, the courts have determined that there is immunity from federal equal employment regulations (hiring homosexuals, etc . . . ), but . . .

If there is no convention religous conviction that a woman should not teach Hebrew to a man, then to terminate a woman because she is a woman puts our convention in legal jeopardy.

If someone says, "But Wade, you are the one who put us in danger of accreditation and legal action by exposing what happened" I would simply respond that the messenger is not the problem, and frankly, if we don't clean up our own messes as Southern Baptists, then we are as guilty as the people who cause them.

Thank you for taking the time to document the work of Sheri Klouda. Sheri was my friend and mentor during my time at SWBTS. She was a godly example to many of the female students in the School of Theology and lived a life above reproach!

What are these people doing at SWBTS? I wished Patterson would understand the Conservative Resurgeon is over! It’s like those old redneck guys (nothing wrong with rednecks) who still think the South is going to rise again. They can’t get over the fact that it is OVER! Paige, please do us all the favor and stop talking.

Wade: An excellent post expressed in the right spirit. Thanks for addressing what is probably one of the greatest problems in the SBC today—godly women being discriminated against simply because they are women.

sbc dish: I will not be going to your site and I seriously hope that you would rethink your format. Gossip and presenting something as if it were something on Entertainment Tonight is neither edifying or to God's glory. I hope that you decide to either scrap the site or write for the Kingdom. Just some friendly input.

Wade, quick go tell Rachelle that YOU are that handsome young trustee "rumored" about.However, I can attest with all certainty you are indeed much more than a pretty face If however you need to be humbled in this flattering post-there are the famous "earl" pictures :)

Volfan,If I remember correctly, you did not reply to a question that someone asked you: “Has your wife ever taught you anything?

I’ll take the liberty to answer that question from your response on another post. I asked you if your wife told you which pants to put on. You replied that you picked your cloths out and asked your wife if they matched.

Was she not ‘teaching’ you, and were you learning from her teaching?

Volfan, your problem is that you have been cursed by God (‘Husband will rule over his wife’) and you enjoy that curse.

Can’t you see your problem? You apply the curse to ‘women cannot teach men.’ You enjoy having authority over women.

Understand that the curse is not the will of God to do, but his will is for man to overcome the curse by the aid of the Holy Spirit, and once again; man and wife, women teaching men etc are to live in partnership.

You remind me of the apostle Peter—he had his foot in his mouth more than the others. Maybe that’s the reason when truth finally soaked in he may have grasped it deeper than the rest.Rex Ray

With Tx. and Ok. iced in you guys have had lots of time to talk about things. :>) Sorry I am arriving at the party late.

I would like to refer to a statement made by RM "The only way things will change is for the trustees to mandate the change. We need to write them personally and share our discomfort with Paige's latest actions." You responded by asking someone to give you the email of the Chair of the SWBTS BoT.

To be honest, I am not really shocked by what you have revealed because I was at SEBTS when we had a woman Prof. teaching Education. She was not given faculty appointment, I do not know why, and left. I am concerned about the statement of no firings and then after a year Dr. Klouda is not given classes.

I do have some questions for you. Did you contact any of the Trustees with these concerns? Also, you have evidently been in contact with Dr. Klouda, does she desire to address this issue herself, or are you doing this on your own? Would it not seem to be the appropiate to address the Trustees with your concern before revealing all of this in an open blog? Your #1 rule for Blogging states; "First, I will not post a conversation, email or letter unless I have specific permission." You stated in this article "I emailed Paige Patterson and Sheri Klouda prior to this posting to alert them and give them an opportunity to respond if they desired. Sheri Klouda preferred not to go on the record. I did not hear from Paige via email so I called Paige before this post went up to speak with him personally. He has not returned my call. I have gone to great lengths to insure that every fact in this post is accurate." Would it not have been beneficial to allow Dr. Patterson enough time to respond? Also, Dr. Klouda is referenced by you as Sheri Klouda and you reference Dr. Patterson as merely "Paige". But, we are not supposed to question your respect or disrespect of Dr. Patterson.

Blessings,Oh, I am sorry, some, and possibly you, do not appreciate my signing off like that. Allow me another,

What do you do with Priscilla and Aquilla teaching Appollos in Acts 18..?("explaining to him the way of God more accurately" vs 26 NASB)

What do you do with Adronicus and Junia (The name of a woman...if one is not playing "fast and loose with the text) who are outstanding among the apostles.

What do you do with Phoebe who is called a servant (The word is clearly diakonos)

What do you do with Philips two prophetess daughters or Anna for that matter?

My point in all of this is that Godly conservative people disagree on the interpretation of these passages...

Why must we codify certain interpretations of second tier doctrines as to narrow the parameters of what it means to be Southern Baptist.

I respect and love many Baptist scholars/leaders (Dr. Patterson is one of those) but I do not always agree with them...they are human beings.

The scripture may be inerrant but many times our interpretations are not. Our leaders are not immune to this tendency...nor are we

Where is the grace? Where is the humility? Sure we can have strong convictions on certain issues. But men and woman who are spirit led and people of integrity...must ackowledge their own errant humanity.

Do you believe what happened to Dr. Klouda was wrong? I do

Should Baptst leaders we know,love, and respect be held accountable when they overstep authority or are just plain wrong? Yes

We have talked an awful lot about authority in this blog. I think it is easy to forget that none of us have any authority unless it is given by others (and of course by God) authority is not automatic or inherent. It is earned or bestowed.

For that matter when I stand and preach..I do not do so on my authority...but on/in/from the authority of God's word.

When a person (man or woman) shares the Gospel...they are teaching doctrine. They are presenting truth with authority.

That authority comes from the word.

When a person (man or woman) teaches a lesson or preaches a sermon...they do not have authority they teach with authority (based on the word)

Why all of this business about authority...the Bible speaks more about servant leadership.

Our denominational leaders need to remember this

Church leaders and staff need to remember this

Husbands need to remember this

We spend all of this time talking about a woman's place and "authority"

The Bible speaks a more clearly about a whole lot of other issues

Maybe if we worked on the other 99% of Scriptural Truth we are supposed to incorporate into our lives...this other 1% would work itself out

For that matter I would rather be wrong on this issue and get the myriad of other issue right..than visa versa

Why...because I do not want to "strain out a gnat and swallow a camel" (Matthew 23)

I think that would do a great deal more damage to my spiritual walk than what I have learned under the authoritative teaching of woman :0)

In fact...legalism almost destroyed me...and God used a godly woman counselor to rescue me from myself and sin!

The person who would not recommend tenure was PP. The issue I have is with with the President of one of our agencies not recommending tenure to a professor on the basis of gender. I told him this privatlely via email and phone prior to this post and asked him to respond to his rationale. I do not know what the trustees know about this matter, and I have not spoken to any of them, including Dwight McKissic, about it.

I have followed all proper procedures, and as you read my post you will see, again, that I express my love and support to my fellow Southern Baptist who has taken this action, and have given him plenty of time to respond. He has chosen, at this time, not to do so.

What the trustees do from this point forward is up to them, but one day I hope you realize that for me to not speak out with the knowledge I have would make me as culpable and guilty as those who took the action or did nothing to stop it.

I wish you a nice day as well, and I would look forward to reading your letter to the trustees once you write it expressing your outrage at this action since you believe that is the best route for you to take.

Wade, et al,The actions by Dr. Patterson regrettably are not surprising to me. The attitude being expressed seems to me to be "Since I have the correct theology, I can do anything I please. I am not bound by any conventional courtesy or ethical standards."

This attitude is very scary. To some extent it reflects the leadership at the national level. "The end justifies the means"Where has integrity gone? Shouldn't we expect and demand higher moral and ethical (to say nothing of spiritual) standards of our denominational leaders?

My response to these revelations is to follow the advice of Oswald Chambers from his My Utmost for His Highest "When you see a brother not going on with the Lord, remember that the Father has shown this to you not so that you may criticize, but that you may intercede" (not an exact quote, but very close)

I typed this out and kept it under the glass on my desk during most of my time spent as an M in Taiwan. It helped me through some very trying and difficult times.

Since that time, I have been reminded by the Spirit on more than one occasion that this should be my response to revelations such as these. It is my opinion that we are in the latter days, and the scripture that comes to mind is "It is time for judgment to begin at the house of God, and if the righteous are scarcely saved, what shall be the fate of the wicked."

I resolve to renew and redouble my intercession on behalf of our leaders, national, denominational, church leaders all. Because I also believe that God is preparing a harvest of souls the likes of which we have never seen, nor would it be believed if we did not live through it. In light of this, our work should be in preparing ourselves to be his ministers in this time of reaping. (I have posted a message related to this on David Rogers' website, so will not repeat it here.)

May God draw us together in a bond of love and concern for the lost as he prepares us for a wonderful harvest.

Has anyone noticed there have been many reasonable AND DIFFERENT interpretations of the Timothy passage given here, as well as many other principles and passages of scriptures cited to, to demonstrate that the supposed "plain language" reading of the passage may not be all that plain. No one is saying that the Word isn't True and Perfect and Inerrant or even saying that if the Word were clear that they wouldn't accept that in faith and follow it regardless of the perceived fallout. Nevertheless, many will not even entertain the possibility of a different understanding with regard to the women in ministry issue.

I frankly have wondered why there is so much concern over this one issue. Seriously, Why is that? People will often entertain debate on eschatology, spiritual gifts, whether other passages were limited in application to a particular time or timeless, but when it comes to this issue... it is almost as if you believe anything other than the man rules the roost for all time you are going to be damned.

And then one writer above asks whether anyone noticed that Jesus and the disciples didn't sit under women? Hmmm, I'm not sure that that is true, but even if it were, could that not have been simply because women in the society then simply were not teachers, and, further, in spite of that we have several woman mentioned (as is noted above in another comment) as leaders and teachers in the early church?

Someone sent me an email that helped me finally understand why, at least for the sender of the email. He in fact demonstrated that for him it was a litmus test of faith. Why? Because, according to him, softening on this issue has always been the foundation point for the liberalization of theology and loss of faith in the truth of God's Word. He wrote "The reason I say 'for the sake of your soul' is because it seems to me that, in the end, this discussion is not really about women in ministry. That is just the scab that we are picking at. The real issue...and the reason why I have spent so much time on this is because it seems to me that your position on Scripture is the same position that leads many people down an eventual path that leads to abandoning the faith."

What say the readers here? Would you agree with such an account of the history of the Christian faith? How does this account for conservative denominations and mission work where women have played a vital role... even as pastors. What does this say to Jesus' command to all believers to go and make disciples? What about where gifts are given to all Christians without reference to gender???

It is almost as if the bible were only written for men if one were to follow their thinking... Has anyone else noticed (softball lobbed)?

I don't know why you deleted my post. If someone after me said something out of line, then good for you for deleting it. You should do that more and not less. But don't delete the posts of people like me who are positive. I assure you I did not write anything bad nor do I know anyone who would do such a thing. Plus, I always sign my posts. This is my 5th one of all-time now...call me jelly becuase I am on a roll! Please someone credible write one after me so that Wade doesn't think I did it. Just kidding :) -Doug

I take issue with one thing you said. It pretains to "Drill Sergeants."

In truth, if we had more trustees in our institutions, agencies, and boards of the SBC with the character and discipline of Drill Sergeants rather than so many Boot-Strapping-Boloney-Eaters we would not be in such a mess:-)

Good try! :) I am asking Wade a question via his blog. Using the blog to say you are going the Trustees is a huge leap! Really huge leap! If you are going to quote scripture at me, why not fit the same scripture into my question first before you? Can you put the two together?

By the way - I am signed up and that has nothing to do with this at all - nice try again! :)

The tired old tripe of "why didn't you work within the system" is a great chorus from you converging choirboys.

It's a refrain we never grow tired of hearing.

Which is a good thing, because you never seen to grow tired of repeating it.

Now since you're not going to be satisfied with the manner in which Wade handled his concerns -- not that it bothers Wade or me or anybody else -- will you tell us if you think a woman who has been trained by Southern Baptists to teach biblical languages, hired by Southern Baptists to teach biblical languages, praised by Southern Baptists for teaching biblical languages, awarded writing contracts by Southern Baptists to write about biblical languages, is now no longer qualified two years after she is hired?

Stick to the point, timmy, and you will find that many will engage you on the point. Sing your silly songs about the system again, and you will find us yawning.

That is my whole point - who is standing up for doing what is right? You can say that something is wrong but saying it via the wrong medium without following the system does not negate the second wrong.

Enjoy your nap - many will follow I am sure! :)

P.S. Silly song? How about scriptural point "let everything be done deciently and in order". Want more?

Considering the Clintonian "slickness" of Paige Patterson's press conference response about women professors and his outright deception to Dr. Klouda later, I hope the seminary trustees wake up and realize what a problem they have at SWBTS.

May I suggest this is what you get when a political campaign is used to change a religious group? The sword-swingers of the 1970's and 80's haven't necessarily made good builders for the 90's and later years.

Wade,Would you want someone bypassing your structure in your church. This is a serious question. Why not go the Trustees (whenever this occured) and appeal to them to investigate? If the investigation is not forthcoming or ..., then take it the whole of the SBC. Why not follow the system?

It’s great to ask that question, but it assumes that we are privy to the names of the trustees. I have not been able to find it, and then we would need a contact, phone or e-mail address to even be able to communicate. The web pages seem to be strangely silent about the trustee names.

Wade says that he did all this according to Scripture and I would normally say that Matt. 18 insists that you must actually have a conversation with the other person before a public rebuke. But there is a new translation of the Scripture that says, "If your brother offends thee, or offends someone that you have heard about, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone, unless you sent an email and a phone message that they did not respond to. If they do not listen, take 1 or 2 more, unless you have a blog and send it out to thousands so Christians and non-Christians alike can see your rebuke." I love these new translations!-- Wayne

I personally believe every name, phone number and address of every single deacon/elder/board of every church should be available on the website of the respective church. You will be hardpressed to find that information.

Your reasoning would lead to the belief that is someone disagrees with a decision in your church or thinks something is being done wrong, that they are free to start a blog or website and let everyone else know. Do you really think that?

Wade, I think you better than this! You and I have Pastored for a long time. I know you would not be happy if a situation was handled this way in your church. Please think about! More, please pray about it. I think the time has come for bloggers to model for our church members how Christ would have us act. We should act as we would want our church members to act - should we not?

As for the Professor, since I do not have her position in this and since I do not know other than what you have written, I can not make assumptions.

Sorry Benjamin, I know you will jump on the last statement, I lofted you up a pretty softball pitch - swing away:).

Allow me a moment to give you and our Brother Ben Cole the benefit of the doubt. You say that you are trying to right a wrong, of which Brother Cole is on board about. He supplied you with some clarification afte you allowed him the privilege of reading this article before it was posted. Therefore, you two are calling into question the "rightness" of Dr. Klouda not being given tenure. Praise God! We have two men that desire to do what is right.

When was this decision made not to give Dr. Klouda tenure? You and our illustrious Brother Cole knew about this travesty when? You now have a conviction of conscious this is wrong, why?

Wow... please don't let a couple of people derail the message of this post. There's been a lot of distraction just with the appropriate interpretations of Timothy, although at least that was practically on point. And, it is a discussion that needs to continue. But this latest brouhaha is inapplicable and adds little to anyone's edification.

Having said that, I'm still disheartened to think that people believe that an individual who disagrees with their interpretation of 1 Timothy 2 may have a questionable faith in Jesus.

In addition, you have your facts wrong. Ben Cole did not provide any clarification for what I wrote.

I did not ask him for any and he did not give any.

AFTER I posted the article on my site - after ten people in an accountability group read it and offered TYPO corrections -- Ben gave to me his only suggestion --

'Wade, you ought to remove a sentence about a conversation you by overhead by IMB trustees in a hotel lobby regarding a female employee of the IMB. (By the way, I have already confronted those trustees privately) Ben went on, "There are some who will use anything they can get their hands on to cause you grief.'

It was good advice, and I did. I am saving that little anecdote for a later time. :)